|
|
September 18th - September 19th, 2004
Rockville, MD
NEWS
|
Until the Fusebox conference ( September 18th - September 19th), we will be talking with featured speakers at the conference.
Interviews
1. Hal Helms - Keynote Speech
In this Fusebox Conference interview, Michael Smith talks with Hal Helms about Fusebox 4.1
and his keynote speech.
MS: I'm speaking with Hal Helms. Hal will be doing a keynote speech at the
Fusebox conference. Any sneak peeks on what the talk will be on?
HH: I'm going to enlist some help from various folks to show off the new
version of Fusebox (4.1) and to talk about ways for developers to use
Fusebox to enhance their own standing in their organization.
MS: So, you're going to release 4.1 at the conference?
HH: That's right, Michael. And because I can guess you're going to ask
what's new, I can tell you that we've added a way to invoke and persist
objects from the XML circuit file. We've added in a very nice assertion
mechanism, and we've responded to some of the requests from various
Fuseboxers.
MS: And what about developers using Fusebox to help themselves within their
organization.
HH: I think this is a big deal. You've heard me say many times that the
average success rate for custom, corporate software projects is less than
30%. It hasn't changed much in fifteen years. It's gotten a little better,
but no great breakthroughs. But in that fifteen years, we've switched from
procedural apps to OO apps.
MS: Hmmm...but the failure rate hasn't gone down.
HH: No, suggesting that the problem isn't going to be solved with a
technological silver bullet. Now, lots of smart people recognize this, so we
have things like agile methodology.
MS: Kent Beck's Extreme Programming?
HH: Yes, that's probably the best known agile methodology. Fusebox, though,
offers both a methodology (FLiP) that's been proven in a great number of
situations - something that XP has not yet done - and a mature, solid
framework to help developers write applications more quickly and
efficiently.
MS: Now, what about Fusebox and OO? If we want to do OO development, do we
need to go with something like Mach-II?
HH: As one of the principals of Mach-II, I'm happy to have people evaluate
it, but the answer to your question is "No". The difference in Fusebox and
Mach-II is essentially one of whether you want the framework code written in
OO.
MS: Does that really matter?
HH: Not to most people, no. I find that people who were "raised" on OO just
like how Mach-II does things. It seems more natural to them. But I do OO
development all the time with Fusebox.
MS: You're a pretty big supporter of OO. Will you be talking about that at
the conference?
HH: I won't, but another speaker will discuss this in a separate session. Of
course, I'm always happy to share a beer with any of the conferees - is that
the right word? - and discuss geeky stuff like this.
MS: Is the conference geared to beginners or mostly established Fuseboxers?
HH: We're seeing a resurgence in ColdFusion as a viable choice for
development. That means we're seeing new developers come on board, so we
have separate tracks for beginners and for existing Fuseboxers.
MS: Any last thoughts?
HH: I hope folks come to this Fusebox conference; I think there's going to
be lots of very good stuff that they won't want to miss.
MS: Thanks, Hal.
Back to Interview
| HOME
| DIRECTIONS
| HOTEL
| SCHEDULE |
| TOPICS
| SPEAKERS
| REGISTER
| CF CONF CENTRAL |
|
|