I am an elegance fanatic. In fact that is one of the reasons I use CF instead of other languages. Doing presentation in a markup language like HTML requires the language to also be tag based. If the language is not tag based than the resulting code will be anything but elegant. However, on the middle-tier or backend where you are just doing logic, tags suck. This is why the combination of CF on the front-end and Java on the backend for such a dynamic duo.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:29 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > I'd also venture that, if you use a methodology - ANY > > methodology - like FuseBox, your code can be fairly > > elegant... > > First of all, my comment about elegance was that CFML code itself isn't > elegant. This is a common complaint about tag-based languages. The good > thing about tag-based languages is that they fit well within an HTML (or > XML, or other tag-based) presentation model. The bad thing about them is > that they don't fit well anywhere else. > > Second, I wouldn't categorize Fusebox as a methodology. To me, a > methodology > is a process that developers can use to solve the problem domain of their > application. Fusebox just tells you how to organize your code - it doesn't > tell you what that code should do. > > Finally, I don't find Fusebox applications to be particularly elegant - > it's > a lot of organizational overhead and I just don't see what it adds, most > of > the time. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
