The reason why you don't run into this with PHP, ASP, and JSP (actually, I avoid JSP) is that they are interpreted languages, like the current CFML is sort of, and the old CF was.
You do get this with Perl. Perl requires compilation time. Actually, some of the advanced CPAN/Perl/PHP stuff I've done lately does require an App compilation. The fact of the matter is that while we provide you with CFML, a RAD development language, which is then interpreted into Java bytecode, we have not left the RAD ideal, in "my" mind, RAD is a style of language that allows you rapid development, NOT taking into account the deployment of application, rather, I don't believe that we "left" RAD behind due to JIT time. While it would be optimal to have all the benefits that we've garnered with CFMX without the compile time, I believe the benefits we have gained outweigh the extra 10-20 seconds it takes to view a source page. You'd get the same thing with Perl. The CFML language is maturing, that's a fact of life. One of the biggest limitations facing "RAD" languages such as PHP, or ASP even is the fact that there is a barrier in their efficiency when trying to stick to the interpreted schema. PHP has even realized this. That's why you have about 10 trillion PHP modules to bypass (or "expand") on the limitations found in an interpreted language. By moving more towards a traditional compile approach, we garner assets in regards to language expansion and integration, and scalability. The performance increase *is* noticeable in a production environment. Scalability is the key. As a general rule, compiled and tuned binaries will almost ALWAYS outrun and outperform interpreted command-driven applications of the same ilk. Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Macromedia Server Development Unix/Linux "special guy" > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:29 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > Jesse and folks, we don't experience the same when dealing with > ASP/PHP/Perl and even JSP (afaik). Ok, this natural on any programming > language such as pure Java, C++ and so on, but I don't agree that such > behaviour is natural and expected in server-side scripts/languages such > as CF and ASP. Maybe MM could go forward on this and provide something > to perform the compilation faster or/and do it on the time we save a > cfm template. > > I have a friend that says the following about CFMX: it seens that CFMX > takes a long turn (gets more time and server resources) to get back to > the same place we can start (or just walk a little bit) with JPS. I > think this is a crap (CFML is easy, rapid and lovely) but the point is: > are the price for the "Java World" too high for merely mortals that just > want to do little things with CF (which is the perfect server-side > architeture for that)? > > Abraços! > Alex. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 26/07/2002 9:44 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > /takes off tinfoil hat > > Uh, just to throw this in, compilation of code is something you deal > with almost any programming language. C, C++, Java, etc. It's a bit of a > movement of a literal line by line read, but overall, it does increase > the speed of the end result. > > Saying "that's Java" is incorrect. "That's Programming" would be more > apt. > > Jesse Noller > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Macromedia Server Development > Unix/Linux "special guy" > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:39 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > > Yea it is a pain in the ass to have it compile the first time but > > thats java for you what do you expect ;) > > > > See java has its bad points. :P > > > > Bill Wheatley > > Senior Database Developer > > Macromedia Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer > > EDIETS.COM > > 954.360.9022 X159 > > ICQ 417645 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alex Hubner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:31 PM > > Subject: 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_perfo > > > rmance_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? > > > > > > []'s > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
