That's OK. If you're muddle-headed, I must be simple minded.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
If i had a nickel every time i got muddle-headed.
wait, that would only be one nickel, i've been muddle-headed ever since.
Steve
Hal Helms wrote:
> The philosopher/mathemetician Bertrand Russell once told his
> collaborator, Alfred North Whitehead: "This issue cannot be resolved.
> The problem is that I am simple-minded and you are muddle-headed."
>
> Dave, I think what my muddle-headed friend, Steve, means is that the
> Fusebox community has produced an architectural framework ("Fusebox")
> and a methodology ("FLiP") that are quite independent of each other.
> Because we only recently made the separation of terms (for the
> excellent reasons you outline), some people say "Fusebox" when they're
> talking about FLiP and the other way 'round.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
>
> > Sure, terminology is important but it is far too often treated as
> > the most important thing and it's not. If you said:
> >
> > "hand me the hammer"
> > vs
> > "hand me that tool with the wooden handle and the metal smasher for
> > banging nails"
> >
> > I'm human, i'd figure it out.
>
> That's fine, conversationally. Scale that up across a larger and
> larger group, and you'd have bigger and bigger problems. The If
> nothing else, you'd get really tired of saying "hand me that tool with
> the wooden handle and the metal smasher for banging nails" over and
> over again. The dumb literalists in the group wouldn't understand that
> you meant to also include the tool with the fiberglass hammer, and the
> tack driver, and so on.
>
> > The name "hammer" is not the important part. My association to your
> > description is the important part, terminology just shortens that
> > description. Some people call Fusebox a methodology because it's a
> > method of building their software, fine. Whereas others call it a
> > framework, because the core files offer a framework for managing
> > their code, that's fine too. No one is going to get a full
> > definition of Fusebox from a single word, so why get so hung up on
> > that?
>
> This sounds like the "Humpty Dumpty" argument - a word means exactly
> what you want it to mean, no more and no less! The problem here is
> that, if someone asks you about your methodology, and you tell them
> about your framework, everyone will be confused, because they are
> different concepts. If you want a word to mean everything, it'll mean
> nothing in the end. Fusebox - it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!
>
> I'm hung up on that, as you put it, because in my experience so many
> CF developers think that as long as they adhere to the Fusebox
> "standard", to the extent that it is a standard, all their design
> problems are solved, and everything else is a "simple matter of
> coding". Of course, also in my experience, this turns out not to be
> the case.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
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/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
