Hands up CF people who still write spaghetti code? I certainly don't MVC and OO all the way!
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I dare you to do it barry. write in Notepad vs VS Studio 2008... > > You're on crack if you think VS Studio isn't one of the most power IDE"s on > the planet. I'll deflect and absorb a lot of crap around being all things > Microsoft, but i've meet die hard Java fanbois through to Adobe staffers > whom have all agreed - Visual Studio is powerful. Now if it's not your cup > of tea, that's cool but "spagetti code" ... you = epic fail :) > btw do you ever stop whining about Microsoft? you grumpy muso :) heheh. > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> is this turning into a Frameworks Vs tools debate? >> >> >> Imagine you're used to using both. if you had to loose one, which one >> would you loose? >> >> personally, I'd rather write code using a framework with Notepad than >> spaghetti code with VS2005. >> >> >> (and Scott: there's a lot of similarities between the core .NET >> "framework" and CF's abstraction of it's underlying Java code) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Rae Buerckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > Lol.. Scott you do make me laugh, in a good way ;) >> > >> > The difference is the frameworks in CF are about community and are open >> > source, and Flex Builder has a plugin for CF Frameworks as does the >> Eclipse >> > IDE :) Which makes the frameworks part of the tool. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > R >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I wasn't there but i never missed an oppurtunity to rub his nose in >> that >> >> one... chuck says hi btw :) >> >> >> >> .NET = Framework that's the zinger in this convo.. We agree frameworks >> >> rock, we also agree that tools play a roll in keeping the code >> maitenance in >> >> a happy state.. point is, if you're writing a framework to keep your >> >> codebase maintainable when a tool could in theory take over the burden, >> then >> >> what problem is being solved and who should own it tommorow (you own it >> >> today, but it shouldn't stop there). >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Rae Buerckner < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Lol... I remember that breakfast Barry! >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Barry Beattie < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> a fair point, Blair >> >>>> >> >>>> the other side of the equation of course is too much hand-holding >> that >> >>>> it gets in the way, either by abstracting too much of the detail so >> >>>> you don't know what's happening under the covers - or - it just plain >> >>>> gets it wrong in edge-cases (special headers needed in CF webservices >> >>>> spring to mind) >> >>>> >> >>>> I've still got a great memory of a WebDU breakfast a couple of years >> >>>> back where Chuck was showing how easy it was to build an >> >>>> ASP.NET<http://asp.net/> >> >>>> application in VS2005 ... which promptly broke when he ran it and he >> >>>> had to go back to rebuild it and apply some setting he'd forgotten >> ... >> >>>> happens to the best of us. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> but this isn't helping Adam much... >> >>>> >> >>>> Adam, if you're still reading this, revisit the CFC dev website to >> get >> >>>> a feel for how important "it depends" means when someone like Sean >> >>>> Corfield says it. >> >>>> >> >>>> simple things will get you most of the way there >> >>>> - keep your view totally separate from your data access code >> >>>> - identify the "Gold" code (ie: it costs a fortune to make) and >> >>>> protect that "investment" (eg: from change + retesting) >> >>>> - you can probably get away with having DAO's for single record >> >>>> access (CRUD) and "gateway" CFC's for the rest. At least it's >> >>>> something. Lots of choices to join up the middle bits >> >>>> - look at what Transfer can give you as a way to get things >> happening >> >>>> quickly for data access >> >>>> - queries are more convenient (and faster) than arrays of objects, >> >>>> structs easier to pass around than single objects >> >>>> - you gotta know the rules before you break them but breaking them >> is >> >>>> OK >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
