> So whether some people call it a methodology, others a > framework, others a standard, are you saying that changes > it's usefulness?
Well, yes, it does. Have you ever seen the Monty Python skit about the guy who has several thousand pieces of string in three-inch lengths or so, and he goes to an advertising agency, and the ad man says "It's water-resistant!" He exclaims, "No it's not!" and the ad man responds "then, it's super-absorbent!" This probably wasn't the best way to respond to this statement, so I'll try again. If you're looking for a tool to solve a problem, let's say a hammer, and you ask me for a hammer, and I hand you a wrench, you might be able to use it to pound a nail, but it's not a hammer. If you want a framework, well, that's something different from a methodology. Is Fusebox one, or the other, or both, or neither? Terminology is important. Language is important. Common definitions are how we know that we're talking about the same thing. This is probably more important in programming than in many other areas more forgiving of vagueness; computers are very stupid, rigid, and inflexible, and good programmers must be very careful with syntax! Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
