I second that.
-----Original Message----- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > CFMX Performance Brief: CFMX is "only" 10% faster than CF5 > under Win2k boxes: > http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/whitepapers/pdf/ > cfmx_performance_brief.pdf > > Well, almost everybody knows it in it's day-by-day tests/usages... > > I disagree with the tests. CFMX is not 10% faster than CF5... > It looks that MM doesn't take in consideration the time (very > long, specially on templates that calls lots of includes, such > as fusebox ones), to the just-in-time compiler finish it's job > (which takes 100% of my CPU)... I've told once and I'm gonna > say it again: it's a pain in the ass wait CFMX compiles my > templates everytime I modify it. In a production environment > this is acceptable but in a development environment is realy > bad! It becames painless if you use 1Gb processors or faster > but... Well, does anybody has the same complain? While you may disagree with the tests, they clearly state that they tested using trusted cache, implying a production environment rather than a testing environment. So, no, they're intentionally not taking development time into consideration. I agree that it takes longer to rerun a page after changing it, but it hasn't been so great a difference that it has bothered me very much; in exchange, I'm happy to get access to the Java wonderland that is CF MX. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
