> The reason? PHP was written by coders who took pride in their work &
> made the best server they possibly knew how. CF was written by
> coders who may well have possessed the same if not superior abilities
> but who were being driven by a marketing division that wanted the
> product out yesterday. The result is a poorly written product that
> even after 5-odd upgrades, service packs, or whatever Allaire chooses
> to call them STILL has a huge number of functional flaws and serious
> speed & efficiency issues.
Actually, JJ wasn't expecting CF to become this giant application server and
be a product that thousands are using. Just beacuse PHP is open source
doesn't mean it's better. Allaire has some pretty smart guys working for
them and the developer base contributes vastly to CF as well. PHP is still
very underdeveloped and has a long way to go.
Best Regards,
Greg Wolfinger
----- Original Message -----
From: Zachary Bedell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: Best Practices
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> <CF_Rant_Rave_and_Vent...>
>
> I might hazard a guess as to why the Java engine appears to be
> running faster than the C++ engine: the C++ engine has been a piece
> of junk since it was released. I've no doubt that Allaire could get
> a Java based engine to run faster than the current CF engine. If
> they took the time to write a well optimized C++ engine, I suspect it
> would be much, MUCH faster.
>
> Compare the speed of something like PHP to CF. On a high level, PHP
> is doing exactly what CF does : open a file, parse the language to
> PCode, execute it, then return the results. That's what the Java
> engine will do as well, parsing to Java bytecode in that case. Yet
> even tho PHP & CF need to accomplish the same basic set of tasks, PHP
> can do the same thing MUCH faster than CF.
>
> The reason? PHP was written by coders who took pride in their work &
> made the best server they possibly knew how. CF was written by
> coders who may well have possessed the same if not superior abilities
> but who were being driven by a marketing division that wanted the
> product out yesterday. The result is a poorly written product that
> even after 5-odd upgrades, service packs, or whatever Allaire chooses
> to call them STILL has a huge number of functional flaws and serious
> speed & efficiency issues.
>
> My apologies to whoever originally said this (and I believe someone
> on list either said it or uses it as his email sig, but...) "A
> product is only late once, but it can suck forever." I wish that
> Allaire would take those words to heart, as I'm getting tired of
> working around their bugs AND my bugs to get a site working...
> </CF_Rant_Rave_and_Vent...>
>
> Okay... My apologies for the on-list core dump. Am I the only one
> who's long past fed up w/ Allaire's business practices? Without a
> doubt they have a great product which makes my job (on the whole)
> easier. It's just that they seem to consistently rush things out the
> door without sufficient testing. At this point, I feel like a beta
> tester even when I'm opening a shrink wrapped final product. As it
> is, I'm stuck using 4.0.1 because 4.5.x can't remain stable while
> running my code; and Allaire's tech support hasn't got a clue why...
> Very frustrating seeing as the same code runs on NT4 / CF4.0.1 with
> complete perfection and only requires a server reboot once every two
> months or so...
>
> Best regards,
> Zac Bedell
> ========================================
> Zachary S. Bedell,
> Chief Technology Officer,
> Adirondack Technologies, Inc.
>
> Please include original message in any replies -- I get a
> lot of email every day, and I have a REALLY bad memory...
> So I don't always remember everything that was said.
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David E. Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 4:42 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Best Practices
> >
> >
> > > That's all great, and I am looking forward to these improvements.
> > > However It's hard to believe that a Java engine will be
> > faster than a C++
> > engine.
> > >
> > > (The Java interpreter itself is written in C++. C++ is
> > compiled directly
> > to machine code. Think about it)
> > >
> >
> > Well, at least in theory, the demonstration during the
> > general assembly
> > seems to prove that the Java-based engine is faster. Keep in
> > mind that this
> > is server side java which has had a great deal of
> > optimization attention
> > paid to it.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOgxx+KvhLS1aWPxeEQKG5QCfYs5mIS6aEa5LDPmVs8E3TCXFYvEAnjt8
> huYj0zImvygkz08XYOEJyucQ
> =8SrH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send
a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
