Perhaps you should start doing some testing... and come with some numbers.
> Would it? Doesn't for instance cfparam do type checking? > > Besides, I don't see much difference with using "var" to declare a non > typed variable to be local inside a function and to use "int" to declare > a variable to be an integer. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:12 AM Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > Sean A Corfield wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote: > > > >>Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type > >>(optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code, > > > > > > That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :) > > Would it? Doesn't for instance cfparam do type checking? > > Besides, I don't see much difference with using "var" to declare a non > typed variable to be local inside a function and to use "int" to declare > a variable to be an integer. I am not sure how much of an impact adding > "int", "double" would have on the compiler, but adding them, even if > just to be used next to "var" inside functions, would be on my research > list. > > Jochem > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
