Im tired, I feel like being mean
*takes out his cluestick and beats Karl senseful*
Okay if your going to take a stance against something
and your gonna rant about it, lets at least NOT
contradict ourself okay!?!#$#@%$$@?
Note, im not crazy for fusebox, but I like it well enough.
Point by point:
You dislike it:
that is your choice
Increases Development time:
Thanks for elaborating here, I have
found it makes it easier and since you
have such a better methodology share with
us instead of being elitist and making
claims without backing them up.
Obfuscates CF debugging, with a lot of includes
it can be a little confusing, unfortunately ive
never found this to be true...... I debug
a large app EVERY day, dont wirte buggy code in the
first place and this is NO problem isnt it?
Superfluous code, to slow?:
Oh your killing me karl, it adds so little extra code
and the runtime IS NOT a big difference CF is already
processor heavy, Fusebox does not add significant time
ive tested this to some extent and found that CF
does enough optimizing internally to where whatever
you do as longa s you write lucid code, is not
going to matter if your using fusebox or not, CF
is to high level to really optimize on a low level
like your making it sound.
Well designed app:
A well designed, well writen application is going to already
do something similar to fusebox, if you havent NOTICED
there arent very many ways to write scalalbe modular
applications in CF without CFINCLUDE... ooooh touch you.
Recommending Fusebox:
Now you are recommending it in a situation you yourself
seem to be in, this is where you lose face with me and
your rant. Saying it makes code easier to maintain at
any rate is kind of admitting you just dont like it and
have no real technical absis for this.
Ive written code in more languages than I can count right
now, ive used OO design methodology, I have used large
LARGE C applications which would make you cry to code
for compared to how easy Fusebox is to follow, you DO
gain something by having a fusebox style app, you dont
have to have a hulking brain to memorize some twisted
application setup. Anyone can hop in and follow
the logic quicker with a set design method, again
how would you do it better?
That last line:
"If you're really having trouble deciding whether to use Fusebox or not,
it may be helpful if you ask yourself what's more important in your
situation: adopting the latest fads in CF development methodologies, or
optimizing your application?"
If you are going to lend ANY credence and then run back and call
Fusebiox a "fad" of a development methodology and then make a statement
like OR optomize your app your just a fool.
You can optimize a fuseapp and "defuse it" as much as you want and
add all the cruft you want to "optimize" your app.
Now then lets offer solutions not just baselessly trash things.
Go ahead I dare you.
BTW, I dont like being critical of anyone, but I also dont like
people who say stuff like this so unthoughtfully. I like people
to be constructive not negative. I like people to at least
make a little more sense than I ever do (its not hard really..
all you have to do is try)
I am only posting this because I see so many people who talk
crap like this and never back it up with their "better" methodology.
Well, I for one am waiting...
Jeremy
> I have used the Fusebox development methodology for several projects, as
> have most of the developers I work with. We all dislike it. It
> slightly increases development time, obfuscates CF debugging, and
> necessitates superfluous code and processing time by routing every page
> call through an index.cfm. We now only use it when clients insist that
> they want their applications built around it (usually they've heard a
> little about Fusebox and think it's cutting-edge so they want it without
> really understanding it).
>
> A well-designed and well-written application does not need to be redone
> in Fusebox to make it better. However, a poorly-designed or
> poorly-written application may benefit from Fusebox because then it will
> be somewhat easier for later programmers to come in and fix it. I would
> only recommend that a new application be written Fusebox-style if it is
> going to be very large and complex, there will be a lot of developers
> working on the application, and if many of those developers are
> ColdFusion beginners (and then only if you ignore the terrible
> filenaming conventions). That's because Fusebox does have some value in
> making the page-flow logic easier to follow for people who are not
> familiar with all of the application, or who are CF beginners. That's
> its only significant advantage. Otherwise you can avoid some unnecessary
> development time (and later CPU overhead) and focus on programming the
> application's logic flow according to your business needs rather than
> shoehorning it into the somewhat arbitrary Fusebox development
> methodology.
>
> If you're really having trouble deciding whether to use Fusebox or not,
> it may be helpful if you ask yourself what's more important in your
> situation: adopting the latest fads in CF development methodologies, or
> optimizing your application?
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl Simanonok, staff consultant
> Advanta Solutions, Inc.
>
> Original message:
> ===========
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:35:26 -0600
> From: "Craig Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: fusebox
> Message-ID: <005801c045ee$becf3f00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yes! Fusebox rocks. It has made my code smaller, more manageable, more
>
> reuseable and easier to understand while being loose enough to let me do
>
> whatever I need to get the job done. I HIGHLY recommend fusebox to any
> CFDeveloper. It is based on Object Oriented Concepts that standard
> desktop
> programming environments have had for years but which web development
> hasn't
> been really able to take advantage of.
>
> The new job I am at has adopted it as company policy because of me and
> so
> did my last job. Also, fUseML is pretty useful although I am still
> learning
> it. They have a book published on Fusebox and fuseml that looks pretty
> good. The print version hasn't been shipped yet but if you buy it you
> get
> the .PDF version pretty quick and then the print later.
>
> go to http://www.fusebox.org
>
> -Craig Bowes
> Coldfusion Programmer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 972.243.1171
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:53 PM
> Subject: fusebox
>
>
> > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology?
> >
> > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion
> lead
> and
> > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox
> method
> > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet.
> >
> >
> > any feedback is well appreciated.
> >
> > chris.alvarado
> > cold.fusion - developer
> > [phone] 512.794.6563
> > [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [web] http://www.tmanage.com
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send
a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
