thats why i was asking if you took 1 good coder and made the same app in straight cfm and 1 in a framework, which would be faster, or i guess it would be better to ask, would it be noticable. Since you are running the same graphics, css, etc and if it was on same server.
~Dave the disruptor~ ---------------------------------------- From: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 5:52 PM To: CF-Talk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Fusebox 4 Slow? > I'm assuming this is more or less the frameworks that use xml or so it seems > but then again I really haven't seen a .net app that's fast either. The vast majority of user-perceptible slowness is due to network latency, not application speed. So even if you service every request in 10 milliseconds, most users are still going to see response times in the 500+ millisecond range, unless they're on the same network as the server. That's a big buffer, and basically negates user perception from consideration as long as you're servicing most requests in less than 300-400 milliseconds. Then they're is also external resources such as images, CSS, and JS file. Those all have to be downloaded, and in the case of CSS and JS parsed, before the page really is there, and unless you're making very good use of request flushing, chances are good none of that even starts until the page is fully at the client. So figure a "typical" request takes from one to two seconds to fully render, almost entirely regardless of server-side performance. The Google search page is way faster because it's tiny, and Google Maps is way more because it has to build and assemble a fairly rich client application infrastructure before it can be effective (though that's all client-side, not server-side). In different terms, figure you have a 10ms response time, so your page loads in 1.01-2.01 seconds, while with a 500ms response time, the page loads in 1.5 to 2.5 seconds. Not much difference for a 50-fold increase in server processing time. Regarding XML in particular, FB4+ is XML-based, and consistently faster than FB3, not to mention much easier to work with and far more functional. So XML isn't a bad thing. The slowness of Model-Glue and Mach-II (compared to Fusebox) are due to their implict invocation architecture, rather than FB's procedural structure. For some application either will work, but for others (particularly larger apps), having implicit invocation eases development and maintenance by such a degree that the added performance costs are more than overcome. cheers, barneyb On 6/6/06, dave wrote: > Yeah that can be true and is a good point. > I really want to get into model-glue but I still remember something I read on > here that was said, someone said that it was slow and the responce was yeah > but it's doing so much underneath, but the user doesn't care what's > underneath they want it fast. > > I'm assuming this is more or less the frameworks that use xml or so it seems > but then again I really haven't seen a .net app that's fast either. > > ~Dave the disruptor~ -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 100 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:242715 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
