I'm actually wondering if some of the complaint about the 'speed' issue is what people are noticing when in development. Let's face it, the debugger application is a hog for whatever it's doing. Every now and then I turn off the debugger so I can get the real speed of what the end user is going to see and I think people are forgetting about that.
In a production environment, debugging shouldn't be turned on (in a perfect world, with the perfect qa environment, etc.). Not all of us are disappointed with CFMX, but then... I dunno, not all of us is writing brand new code either. ~Todd On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Jesse Noller wrote: > 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. > -- ============================================================ Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ | http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator) | http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | ============================================================ ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm 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
