You make a few good points in this article, but I do have a couple comments for you.
The title of the article is "...Fusebox is Toast" yet in your last paragraph you say "So, does this mean that Fusebox is toast. No". Isn't that a little contradictory? Also, I think you might be missing the point of fusedocs. You stated that CFCs document for you. While this may be true if you've already written and tested the CFC, it is not the point of Fusedocs. Fusedocs are like blueprints, when you're building a house, you don't build the house THEN draw the blueprints. It's the other way around. Fusedocs tell the programmer what variables they have so they know what their fuse needs to do. This has been a major flaw for 50 years in the concept of software documentation. Steve "Benjamin S. Rogers" wrote: > > > Don't you understand... that if you don't want to move the > > standard to MX then you are dedicating resources to develop an > > alternate way of doing what MX is ready to do... hmmm... maybe I > > am wrong... but it seems like that is the case. > > <plug type="Shameless"> > > That was actually one of the main points of an article I wrote just the > other day. You may find my experiences interesting. > > http://www.fulgen.com/content/developerscorner1.cfm > > </plug> > > Benjamin S. Rogers > http://www.c4.net/ > v.508.240.0051 > f.508.240.0057 > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
