Well... "we" is a strong word. I wouldn't really include myself in that description because I have never been a Fusebox person and my coding style has always been more traditional than you would find in most CF shops.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:57 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX & JIT - productivity madness > > I agree in terms with you Matt. Since I'm a Fusebox programmer and a > "old fashioned" CF5 coder i will take a litle more time to see any > compensation on that. CFC are great, but they don't change the fact that > simple CFML code (the one we have been using for 4-5 years) now is > harder and more time-consuming to debug under CFMX. > > []'s > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 12/07/2002 3:33 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX & JIT - productivity madness > > > I think it's a mixed bag really. In some cases developing in CFMX is > slower because of the compilation issues. On the other hand, things like > CFCs and the fact that Java classes integrate much easier make > development much faster. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.montarasoftware.com/ > V: 415-577-8070 > F: 415-341-8906 > P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:35 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: CFMX & JIT - productivity madness > > > > Dear folks, > > > > Since we're talking about CFMX and all the problems related to it > (sorry > > Ben, but CFMX still very painful for me, most of all due the lack of > > documentation) I'm curious about the time now we take for code-debug > > operations. > > > > Most of programmers (including me) simply do coding on the CFStudio > and > > than switch to the browser to refresh the template over a staging > > server. We check errors, watch server behaviour and other stuffs. Now > > with CFMX we have to wait (even on a very fast CPU) a least 3-5 > seconds > > to see the page result due the Just in time compiler. Not to mention > > that (as far as I tested) the 100% CPU consumption on this process... > > This is a very significant reduction on the productivity. If we take > > this issue plus the new scenario of product modifications (tag > changes, > > new features, old coding behaviours, etc) we can fact that CFMX > > development is far away from the CF5 good (and fast) times. > > > > Does anybody is facing it? > > > > Thanks! > > Alex > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
