On 5/17/07, James Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I cant speak about Frameworks in general, but I can tell you to avoid FuseBox > like the plague.
Oh dear... there's always one, isn't there? > If all you ever coded in was fusebox, then maybe its an OK framework to work > with. I didn't much care for Fusebox 3. I thought Fusebox 4 was OK, Fusebox 4.1 was an improvement. I wrote Fusebox 5 and 5.1 and I'm busy writing Fusebox "6" (the current feeling in the Fusebox community is that we might call it 5.5). I've written applications with various versions of Fusebox (in both PHP and CFML), Mach II (in both PHP and CFML), Model-Glue and "no framework". I've used ColdSpring with all of the above. I've used Reactor and Transfer with ColdSpring (and Model-Glue). I've contributed code to pretty much every framework I've used so I like to think that I know the pros and cons of all those frameworks pretty well. I hear lots of good things about ColdBox but haven't had a chance to try it out yet. Frameworks are definitely a "Good Thing". The only one with books available is Fusebox. Jeff Peters' new Fusebox 5.1 book (from Proton Arts) is very good, covering both Fusebox and the FLiP methodology. > We hired a new developer who told us that FuseBox was the bomb and that he > knew it. We gave him a specific project to code using FuseBox and to this day > we regret it. The code is so difficult to read, understand and debug that any > possible gain in the form of reusable code is immediately lost many times > over in finding the code you intend to reuse. That's almost certainly because HE WAS A BAD DEVELOPER! Don't blame the framework for his poor code. You can write bad code with *any* framework if you are (a) a bad programmer or (b) determined enough. I've seen bad Mach II good too. I haven't seen enough Model-Glue code to see much bad code there but I bet it exists out there. > Maybe the project was too large for FuseBox. Maybe the guy was incompetent > (he no longer works for us). But we deeply regret allowing him to code that > project in FuseBox and have not even considered using it again. Fusebox is very good at handling large projects because it supports modular development (with circuits). I'm sorry that one bad experience with one bad developer has made you avoid using a very popular, well-supported, well-documented framework that powers a large number of large (and small) websites. It's "Fusebox", BTW, small 'b'. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:278563 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
