oi Matt!! *sigh*
-- Critz Certified Adv. ColdFusion Developer Crit[s2k] - <CF_ChannelOP Network="Efnet" Channel="ColdFusion"> ------------------------------------ Monday, April 29, 2002, 10:40:30 PM, you wrote: ML> You are sure implying a lot out of comments. I didn't specify what you ML> should know. Further, I was referring to bastardization of terms, ML> nothing else. ML> Do you know what terms like architecture, standard, application ML> framework, or methodology mean? Before you answer that, let me tell you ML> that you don't need to know what they mean in order to build good web ML> applications. However, if you are going to learn about those terms and ML> what they mean, you should learn their proper meaning. The Fusebox ML> people have taken these terms and warped their meaning, so that people ML> who learn Fusebox are in fact learning bad techniques. Not because the ML> Fusebox techniques are bad, but because the Fusebox techniques do not ML> fit the terms used to describe them. ML> Now if you want to debate of the worthiness of Fusebox techniques, I'm ML> game. ML> On the other hand, if you want to talk about what things someone ML> starting out in CF should know, I'm game for that too. ML> -Matt >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:22 PM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: RE: I like CFMX >> >> Come on now that's a bit much isn't it? Why is something that takes ML> those >> things that work, and throws what doesn't away considered a >> bastardization. >> I mean I have heard plenty of people say we would still be writing >> assembler >> for dos without growth, right? (in my case basic on a commodore). ML> Listen >> not everyone who does CF has, nor wants, all this low level/process >> knowledge. Hell it's not even a full time job for some of the people ML> I >> have >> met . I mean people in HR and well all over different departments may ML> end >> up using this stuff in a large corporation. FB makes a lot of these >> advanced principals available to the common man, and it does it damn ML> well. >> I mean christ I started learning CF right after I got out of the 82nd >> Airborne. I was a grunt, an infantryman, no idea about oop ML> principals, >> extreme programming, mvc, struts. I hadn't read any of the books that ML> I >> have now, and I knew next to nothing, but guess what, I wrote some ML> pretty >> cool, and powerful web based apps using FB. Quick. >> >> As far as I am concerned you can do no better, as a newbie, than to ML> learn >> CF >> and Fusebox at the same time. The lessons you learn about >> maintainability, >> portability, and functionality are lessons you NEED, and a whole lot >> easier >> to learn than grabbing a copy of code complete and just "figuring it ML> out". >> Now I didn't go to some college for four years and learn all these ML> things. >> Maybe if I had I would see it differently, but I doubt it. >> >> Tim Heald >> ACP/CCFD >> Application Development >> www.schoollink.net >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:05 PM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: RE: I like CFMX >> >> >> I get all that without Fusebox. What is unique about Fusebox besides ML> the >> bastardization of common programming terms? >> >> -Matt >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 6:51 PM >> > To: CF-Talk >> > Subject: RE: I like CFMX >> > >> > Nested layouts, circuits, MVC implementation in CF. A tried and ML> true >> > development process. Huge amounts of community support. I don't ML> know >> > about >> > you, but it helps me a lot. >> > >> > Tim Heald >> > ACP/CCFD >> > Application Development >> > www.schoollink.net >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM >> > To: CF-Talk >> > Subject: RE: I like CFMX >> > >> > >> > Good point, when Fusebox does something useful I'll use it too. >> > >> > -Matt >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 6:12 PM >> > > To: CF-Talk >> > > Subject: RE: I like CFMX >> > > >> > > > > I'm happy to continue playing with CF, as long as >> > > > > it can be used to deliver solutions better, faster, >> > > > > and cheaper than the competition. >> > > > >> > > > Now if only we could get you to feel that way about >> > > > Fusebox. Yeah, yeah, I know. It'll be a cold day in..... >> > > >> > > Well, it doesn't help me deliver solutions better, faster and >> cheaper! >> > But >> > > you don't have to convince me - if it works for you, feel free to >> > continue >> > > using it without my seal of approval. I've never said that it ML> hurts >> > > anything >> > > to use it, just that it doesn't help. >> > > >> > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software >> > > http://www.figleaf.com/ >> > > voice: (202) 797-5496 >> > > fax: (202) 797-5444 >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> ML> ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
