Yes, at it's core, CFMX is java, plain and simple. Nearly 0 C code. (Verity, few other things).
As for slowness, it's faster than CF5. as for memory management, this, along with the speed issues, is a common complaint about the OLD versions of java, which have been addressed in the current revisions. Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Macromedia Server Development Unix/Linux "special guy" > -----Original Message----- > From: Paris Lundis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:17 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > so is MX at the core Java? I keep hear that's the gradual plan, migrate > away > from C... > > If that is true, how is macromedia addressing Java's great slowness and > the > infamous memory management/cleanup randomness that stops things? > > -paris > Paris Lundis > Founder > Areaindex, L.L.C. > http://www.areaindex.com > http://www.pubcrawler.com > (p) 1-212-655-4477 > [finding the future in the past, passing the future in the present] > [connecting people, places and things] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:26 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > 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)? > > > > Abra�os! > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
