I get there is a use case for passive code gen, but for me it's pretty limited. Assume only 20% of effort is building site (compared to maintenance) and 20% is building the first cut with 80% being making changes to original version, the most it can do is speed up 4% of the app. It isn't that much harder to do active code gen with rich metadata and allows you to be way more productive over the entire lifecycle. Just a matter of learning the principles and implementing the tooling. I usually find it's worth a day or two to create usable tooling for active, full lifecycle code gen rather than just using the wizards.
Best Wishes, Peter On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: > Scenario > You're building an enterprise application for an existing > database > You have Flex 3 front ends > ColdFusion 8 backend! > > Install the ColdFusion extensions (free) for Flex Builder > Create a > new Flex project > Setup your CF setting in the Flex project > > enable RDS > > You can now browse to any database CF can see, right click on a > table > select generate CFC's! > > Seconds later you have all your getters & setters, all your CRUD and > all your actionscript. > > 20 or so lines of MXML later you have your GUI > > Time to market is always the winner! > > R > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Personally I think the tooling in .net is the worst thing to happen to > a good language. I like many of the language features in c#, but the > patterns that the tooling supports (code behind, page controllers) > just aren't as good as some of the best practice patterns in the Java > world. Also, tooling will tend to generate code and the best code is > the code that NOBODY writes and that doesn't exist. That is where > frameworks come in by raising the level of abstraction. Right now I'm > at a code gen conference with some of the Microsoft DSL tools team > including Steve Cook and I'll see how it has improved since last year, > but I don't feel that on balance the Microsoft tooling does more good > than harm for building large, scalable enterprise apps. > > Best Wishes, > Peter > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I see you point that they (tools and frameworks) fill many of the > same > > needs. That is probably true of every language. > > > > But I disagree with the implication that a good tool is inherently > > better than a good framework. The choice is much more pragmatic than > > that: which option offers the best features, smoothest learning > curve, > > etc. > > > > Visual Studio is the clear winner in the .NET space and frameworks > are > > big in ColdFusion. > > > > Personally I'm happy to get my hands dirty with plumbing - I'm > sure my > > understanding of application design and development is the better > for > > it. > > > > Blair > > > > On 6/25/08, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm sure that convo will yield a lot and provide little :) After > >> spending > >> some time look around for the past 5 years I've come to one sad > >> conclusion > >> and I'm sure it's not popular thinking.. Frameworks in coldfusion > >> exist to > >> compensate for lack of tooling, as if you have nothing to automate > >> the > >> plumbing you now have to write the automation to then keep the > pieces > >> manageable to connect. > >> > >> to answer this riddle, Imagine for a moment if everyone wrote .NET > >> with > >> notepad? as of today - where would it be tomorrow? > >> > >> ** > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Barnes' thoughts (or similar) are being echoed over on the CFC Dev > >>> list at the moment with people like Peter Bell, Sean Corfield, > Brian > >>> Kotek and our very own Mark Mandel, amongst others. > >>> > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev/browse_thread/thread/2e90c0dbfecf5a59 > >>> " Doubts about Best Practices" > >>> > >>> why was fusebox invented in the firstplace? to push people into > >>> doing > >>> something more than writing spaghetti code. but you gotta have an > >>> idea > >>> of how to fix it before you can fully appreciate the problem. > Hence > >>> the value of learning about design patterns. See the Donald > Rumsfeld > >>> quote at the bottom > >>> > >>> let me leave you with some quotes: > >>> > >>> ... two from Albert Einstein > >>> > >>> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and > more > >>> violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to > >>> move > >>> in the opposite direction." > >>> - and - > >>> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not > simpler." > >>> > >>> ... one I got reminded from by (of all people) Gary Menzel > >>> > >>> "Code for maintainance" > >>> > >>> ... and Donald Rumsfeld really sums it up > >>> > >>> "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we > >>> know. > >>> We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know > there > >>> are some things we do not know. > >>> But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know we > don't > >>> know." > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Scott Barnes > >> http://www.mossyblog.com > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
