I suppose that is why I have not changed over, some of the things I see on the list is having to modify xml files to get things to work right and stuff and this was never an issue with CF thru 5.
Douglas Brown Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paris Lundis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:36 PM Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > Well the myths are fairly valid and speed of Java still if improved can't be > that wonderful.. ideally, though it is heading in the better direction due > to intelligence and not just faster processors... I will leave that to the > code gods to figure... > > I haven't touched MX yet.... > > CF succeeded on its ease of use and simple syntax... other 'real' > programming fails for its complexity, cost to implement, longer debugging, > etc. > > If CF is moving towards all need to compile complex operations and code, it > will fail. Its not a matter of technical proficiency of the code writers.. > its more of the needs of the people and why they chose CF thru version 5. > They tend to be understaffed solutions, small or no teams, small budgets, > needs that are impossible versus the deadline... on average... > > CF is also attainable so of course a good number of newbies and such... > > So being a dummy about the issues with MX and the strategy, what exactly is > proving cumbersome or radically different? is compiled code optional or > mandatory? > > Can users still get that easy to use out of box experience, or is there the > Java installation, third party torture and new syntax just to get started? > > -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: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:55 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 11:16 , Paris Lundis wrote: > > so is MX at the core Java? I keep hear that's the gradual plan, migrate > > away > > from C... > > CFMX is pretty much pure Java. That's why several folks have it running on > Mac OSX. I don't know whether it was C or C++ in its earlier guise. > > > If that is true, how is macromedia addressing Java's great slowness and > > the > > infamous memory management/cleanup randomness that stops things? > > Those are pretty much myths about Java. CFMX is (almost) pure Java but > outperforms CF5 which was written in C/C++. Java's memory management is > much better these days - you're really only talking about garbage > collection and time-distributed sweeps are pretty much the norm now to > avoid the sudden... stop that used to be so characteristic of that sort of > technology. > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
