Comments on: Wish lists http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/2006/07/25/wish-lists/ Music, Politics and Code Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:53:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Teddy R Payne http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/2006/07/25/wish-lists/#comment-77 Teddy R Payne Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:29:57 +0000 http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/?p=38#comment-77 I think the ability to create a framework for procedural, OO or RIA in a singular language is impressive in itself. ColdFusion gives the power to the developer to create a development process solidly using tools that work impressively well together. Developers can make it simple, complicated or a mixture of both; they have the "choice." With every version, the word "limitation" is slowly removed from my CF dictionary. I think the ability to create a framework for procedural, OO or RIA in a singular language is impressive in itself. ColdFusion gives the power to the developer to create a development process solidly using tools that work impressively well together. Developers can make it simple, complicated or a mixture of both; they have the “choice.”

With every version, the word “limitation” is slowly removed from my CF dictionary.

]]> By: Sean Corfield http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/2006/07/25/wish-lists/#comment-76 Sean Corfield Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:23:43 +0000 http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/?p=38#comment-76 Nicely said Ashwin! As for frameworks, yes, it would be an impossible choice to make. Should CFMX ship with something suitable for procedural programmers (e.g., Fusebox 5) or something suitable for OO programmers (e.g., Model-Glue: Unity) or something suitable for Flex back ends (e.g., Tartan) or...? And how then would updates to the frameworks be handled? As someone who is heavily involved in the frameworks community, I would not want to see Adobe endorse any specific framework (our Web Team uses Mach II, cfcUnit and Tartan; our Hosted Services team uses Model-Glue: Unity, cfcUnit, ColdSpring and Reactor; one of our Senior Computer Scientists built Fusebox 5 so we're spreading the love right now - and that's how it should be!). Nicely said Ashwin!

As for frameworks, yes, it would be an impossible choice to make. Should CFMX ship with something suitable for procedural programmers (e.g., Fusebox 5) or something suitable for OO programmers (e.g., Model-Glue: Unity) or something suitable for Flex back ends (e.g., Tartan) or…? And how then would updates to the frameworks be handled?

As someone who is heavily involved in the frameworks community, I would not want to see Adobe endorse any specific framework (our Web Team uses Mach II, cfcUnit and Tartan; our Hosted Services team uses Model-Glue: Unity, cfcUnit, ColdSpring and Reactor; one of our Senior Computer Scientists built Fusebox 5 so we’re spreading the love right now - and that’s how it should be!).

]]> By: Mike Kelp http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/2006/07/25/wish-lists/#comment-75 Mike Kelp Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:12:15 +0000 http://blogs.sanmathi.org/ashwin/?p=38#comment-75 I really feel you are right on the mark with that last line. CF treads a perfect line between flexibility, power, and simplicity. These don't have to be mutually exclusive, but it does make feature decisions harder. Thanks for sharing your comments and all of your hard work on CF. Mike. I really feel you are right on the mark with that last line. CF treads a perfect line between flexibility, power, and simplicity. These don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but it does make feature decisions harder.

Thanks for sharing your comments and all of your hard work on CF.

Mike.

]]>