Let's try this again. :) > I don't know. Doesn't CF take care of query caching? ;-)
It can. It certainly does have a built-in mechanism for caching them. I'm not personally very fond of the built-in mechanism, so I've created my own mechanism for caching queries (which isn't tremendously different, but does provide a little more control). > I guess my point is that I can see the point of not > worrying too much, but I don't buy into believing > things will change in the future. Arg! Of course things > will change, but, um. Well... I guess don't go around > smoking, thinking that, "what the hell, by the time I > get cancer, we'll have the technology to..." Or you > can, hell, I do sometimes, and it could be true, but > the safest bet is to avoid smoking. :-/ I don't think that's actually analogous to my development process. I do actually spend quite a bit of time working on the optimization of my applications, but I stay away from much examination of the more extreme "low level" ideas. For example, unless I have some very compelling reason (it could happen, though I don't think it's likely) I won't avoid using a loop to concatenate some strings if it makes coding an application easier. Examining my queries and caching routines (as Dave Watts suggested) for ways to optimize my applications is however an assumed part of my development process. So I'm not exactly running around saying "oh just throw whatever abstraction you want in there, 'cause the hardware will support it in 20 years" (and even if I were, the Cancer analogy is bad because we have no real proof of progress toward a cure for cancer, whereas we have definitive and continual proof of the progress of our hardware). What I'm saying is that there is a need to consider the progress of hardware when evaluating the long-term viability of abstractions in our software. Something that is not viable in today's market because its poor performance makes it unable to support a profitable application may very well be a major bread-winner in twenty years for its ability to help programmers produce more "agile" code. Thus it's also bad form to discount an idea that failed once before for performance reasons without first testing it in combination with new hardware and new complementary technologies/techniques. > Take one look at the gamer market and tell me that > people aren't still concerned with shaving .00002 > off of some random shade routine. > :-) Thank god. I kind of dig that. Some of us. :) But I don't work in the gaming market... and I'm glad I don't. :) > Hey Isaac, ever read "the age of spiritual machines"? > :D Nope, hadn't heard of it until just now. :) s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:237654 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
