> Whoever said that FB is self > documenting must not be commenting his/her code. If this person had just > added comments to the header of each document, it would be so much > easier to track down and debug these applications.
I comment my code well anyway. I disbelieved the FB claim of being 'self-documenting' from the start - seems silly. I guess a really messy coder can make a mess of something using whatever well-designed system. Thing is, the style of my app structure/naming conventions/ documentation does shift about from one project to another - mostly because I'm constantly learning in small ways. Now I feel I've enough of a grasp of CF to really start to standardise things, to give me a few less things to think about in the day-to-day coding. I could come up with my own set of conventions and my own open-ended architecture - my feeling is just, why not adopt Fusebox, to save myself a bit of time, probably learn some stuff in the process, and leave my work using something that at least some other developers out there are using too? I guess in this position it's just a matter of whether Fusebox's style meshes at all with your own enough to make it worthwhile. - Gyrus ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
