-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 1:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Function Libraries
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:18:02 -0400, John D Farrar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yet, I am not much of a respecter of persons... so "I disagree" is > merely a statement... give me some facts. I've mostly given up arguing with you because you have such strange views. Sorry but you seem to be very uninformed about the vast body of software engineering information out there and you persist with ideas that run counter to decades of well-tested and well-established best practices. Answer: You haven't argued... that is my point. You simple state "standards" without supporting them. You say, "I disagree"... which is fine. But the fact that you disagree isn't a "reason". That is what I keep asking for... you haven't argued. You have simply stated principles that the "less enlightened" are suppose to accept based on your experience. Yet, you won't explain to me the why! That is why I don't accept them... and that is what I am telling you. ... And, the vastness of opinion doesn't make something truth. Galileo presented a scientific study dropping two objects from the tower of Piza to show how mass and gravity worked. After making his point, (which was "strange views") they went on teaching the same thing. They couldn't see it. All I am asking, is give me some Galileo type proof... rather than your bragging about your credentials. I am more willing to look at what you have to say because of your credentials, but not just accept it because you have them. > Does Mach II have a Framework that covers API > rules from coding methodology to presentation layer variable rules and > techniques? That question makes no sense. Mach II *is* a framework. Answer: Again... back to the illusive term framework. You are playing word games... and as you said below. > That is how I term Framework... Well, that's just confusing the issue then - why not use the same terms with the same meanings as the rest of the software industry? Answer: I have not spent 25 years defining terms. You have, what is the term for a system with these features. 1. API to build software around. (so you can build programs in windows like fashion vs. DOS approach... and you say my ideas are strange... heh, what a laugh, APIs are not strange) 2. Separation in API of Tiers (Data, Logic, Content, Presentation) where appropriate and productive. (Some more strange ideas?) 3. Code reuse and accomplish number 2 through CFTags, CFCs, UDF Libraries and variable scheme. 4. Creation of Web Skins... so multiple methodologies can be used on one site with same look and feel. Applications built on sites can be installed without touching presentation layer to integrate. 5. Common user/authentication system. Same as number 4... application integration without rewriting. Now, I have done much of this work on my own... so someone with as much experience as you can certainly find flaws in the "grand scheme" of practice. Yet, if you consider the 5 goals I listed above as strange... that would be amazing! Lastly... you are speaking of enterprise. This seems to be the focus of most of the "standards" groups. That is how something like Mach II likely shines! Yet, if you have a small business... say a auto glass store, or a local health food coop store.... are you going to learn Mach II to build a web site? Well, yes... you would. :) Yet, very few others would. That is what my efforts are about. They are about SOHO software that allows small business to do business in the big business world without enterprise budgets. (Another one of my strange ideas... compassionated engineering) I am sure you can pick me apart, and using your credentials and industry experience you can make it sound good... and beat me in the status game. What I am asking you for is knowledge and answers... not rhetoric. That is the difference between contributing and arguing. All I did was give answer from what I know. And you shot me down based on "who you are". I find that attitude offensive... and would ask you to be a bit more respectful of your fellow man. If my ideas are strange... use your knowledge and shine a little light. Thanks, John Farrar ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
