RE: [coldbox:3275] Re: ColdFusion equivalent to Grails

Much more... :slight_smile: Charlie Arehart has a pretty exhaustive list:

Sometimes I'm a little afraid of the monolith idea. I kind of think
competition is good sometimes with frameworks since some people explore
ideas that would never have been tried out by another framework etc.


D. We do have _a lot_ of frameworks. Just some that come to mind:

1. Coldbox
2. MachII
3. Fusebox
4. Fuse NG
5. FW/1
6. Quicksilver
7. CfWheels
8. Ontap
9. Farcry

Plus more.

I refer to monolith framework only because I'm thinking of Ruby on
Rails. I agree that competition is good and it'd be fine to have
2,3,4,5 frameworks competing with each other. But when I consider the
number of the CF developers and then consider the number of those who
are using a framework at all, it doesn't justify, for me, having 20+
frameworks. If his post leads to _some_ consolidation and
collaboration, I think it could be beneficial.

That said, if hundreds of frameworks are to be, I really like how
coldbox is trying to add functionality in more modular ways. Like,
logbox is part of the framework but I can also use it on its own in an
app with no framework. Or I could use it with another framework. Or I
could even make it part of the core of some new framework yet to be
made. If we're going to have so many options, building functionality
in this way is great as you can really start to mix and match the
pieces that you like and not reinvent the wheel.

[humor] And why do we have so many frameworks? Authors should only
disagree about one thing: xml or convention based. Answering that
question would determine which of the two frameworks you'd work on.
And your answer should be convention based. [/humor]

- Gabriel