Ben Nadel
On User Experience (UX) Design, JavaScript, ColdFusion, Node.js, Life, and Love.
Ben Nadel at the New York ColdFusion User Group (May. 2009) with: Abraham Lloyd and Peter Bell and Gert Franz and Mark Drew
Ben Nadel at the New York ColdFusion User Group (May. 2009) with: Abraham Lloyd@abrahamlloyd ) , Peter Bell@peterbell ) , Gert Franz@gert_railo ) , and Mark Drew@markdrew )

David Leventi Photography Is Now Live - Life Back To Normal

By Ben Nadel on

For the past several weeks, I have been spending various nights working on my friend's web site, David Leventi Photography. It was a nice, simple site, and my first use of jQuery in any sort of production situation. It was a fairly easy site to build; the majority of the time was spent resizing images and getting the graphics to work (I didn't have the right fonts and had to keep going back to the designer for all "graphical" text changes - we've all been there!).

But that's not the point. The point I wanted to get to was that the methodology in which I coded the site was what some might call the "No Methodology," methodology. Yeah, that's right, I said it. I included a header and footer file on each template. I had a function (UDF) file that I include in the Application.cfm file - what's that? Yes, I did use the Application.cfm rather than the Application.cfc, cause frankly, it was just quicker.

Did I use any of my traditional framework stuff? No, not at all. Did I use good, clean programming? Absolutely! Just because I didn't have a set framework doesn't mean that I wrote sloppy code.

Was the site successful? I like to think so. I wish it loaded a bit faster, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that it's graphical content and there is only so much I could do. I coded the photo galleries in such a way that makes it very easy to add more. It's somewhat flexibly and does exactly what it needs to do.

Ok, so I've rambled a bit... what does it all mean? I means that I don't always need a framework or OOP style programming to create a successful site. It means that just because I didn't use a framework doesn't mean that I was "programming by coincidence". Now, some of you might read this and think to yourself "Of course you don't always need a framework," but for each one of you out there, there seems to be someone who lives and dies by the framework mentality and thinks that all other methodologies only work "by accident."

Frameworks have their place, very true... well, sometimes, so does some sweet, clean spaghetti code.

Reader Comments

Ben, it looks like you've arranged the noodles in nice straight lines. =)

I agree with you. When working on similar, smaller projects like this, I often use the same method you did. Well, the only difference is I put the header and footer in Application.cfm and Onrequestend.cfm instead of including it on each page. If it grows, I'll start putting things into objects and such, but if there is not reason to add to the complexity to keep things simpler, why do it?


Thanks. I think it sticks with the whole KISS (Keep it simple [stupid]) mentality. I don't think anyone would argue that frameworks DO add a bit of overhead. Why do it if I am not gonna use any of it.


I have gotten than once or twice before but could never seem to duplicate it. I also test on IE / XP (which is where I would get it). Does it happen for you all the time? Or just occasionally?

I think it has something to do with the jQuery call-back method that I am not fully aware of yet.


your post kind of reminds of a rambling I had recently. However, instead of frameworks, it was about objects. Everybody and their grandma is using objects. Wtf? Grandma does not need to be an object! OOP has it's place but it's not everywhere. I recently ran into this with JavaScript and the use of objects for simple JS calls using prototype.

Because you didn't use OOP it sucks Ben. I mean come on man, developing a good application also with using application.cfm?? You should be banned from CF development! For those that are a little slow today... uhhhh... yes that is sarcasm. :) Great job with the site Ben. It's nicely done and I'm sure your friend is impressed with it's flashy interactivity. Simple applications shouldn't be built with OOP unless preferred but its not needed. OOP is beneficial (and using design patterns) when trying to solve reoccurring problems. With a simple application you just won't run into this but in this case you built more of a web site (a portfolio) rather than an application per say. So no need to be all "ohhh I didn't use OOP" and "my site is sooo cool because I didn't use it". :) Nonetheless well done Ben. Hopefully now you get to have some more free time for yourself.

More free time and less wrist pain :) I can't seem to work a full day and then a long evening without my wrists kicking me in the butt! Damn you repetitive stress pains!