>What makes this so compelling (and so frustrating) is that we all are
>on the same side!
This situation is often called "violent agreement". It generally happens
when everyone has a valid point.
I think the "cf *should* be better optimized" folks need to ask themselves
if CFMX is better/faster/more optimized than CF 5. If it is, then be happy,
maybe cheer a little, and move on to getting your work done, satisfied that
MacroMedia and CF are moving forward. (I don't recall anyone posting the
timing test results for CF5 vs CFMX. Maybe someone did, but I missed it.)
Saying "cf *can" be better optimized" is not really saying anything, since
that will always be true. Pointing out specific ideas for enhancement (like
optional strong typing) is a good, but it's hard for someone external to
know what will really increase performance. Personally, I wouldn't mind
optional strong typing just for the additional safety and greater
communication/expressiveness... I wouldn't care if it's faster (or a little
slower).
If you have specific examples of where CFMX is slower than CF5 and it hurts
(COM comes to mind, though I don't use it), then let MM know about it.
Saying CFMX isn't "fast enough" or "optimized enough" because it performed
worse that another language in a contrived benchmark is not going to get you
anywhere. (Why not compare that java test to C++?) If you feel that the
platform isn't allowing you to do your job then find another platform ("vote
with you feet") or architect a solution to deal with the slow part (use java
for hairy algorithms, for example; CF makes it pretty easy to do).
The key is to use the right tool for the job. The company I work for has a
mature web site that we can modify, extend, and enhance easily because we
architected it nicely using the core features that CF had pretty much all
along, including structures, custom tags, cfservlet and wddx. I'm looking
forward to refactoring our web site using the latest features in CFMX (udfs,
cfcs, java objects, maybe JSP-based custom tags, maybe web services).
Do I want our web site to run faster with each new version of CF? You bet!
Do I *need* it to? Well, no, because we've already dealt with the parts that
were too slow when using only straight CF (that's that why cfservlet was in
the mix of currently used features... we built a servlet-based java
back-end).
---
To me "optimization" applies to more than just raw execution time of an app.
By adding powerful new constructs (like cfcs) MacroMedia allows us to
continue to optimize our developers' time and our company's agility and
time-to-market. These are more important to me than a few hundred
milliseconds per page hit.
Thanks
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
What makes this so compelling (and so frustrating) is that we all are
on the same side!
Dick
______________________________________________________________________
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
