I'm declaring it dead for the sake of it not being an issue anymore. My original post and times for it showed IIF() being half as fast as CFIF. This is no longer true. Readability is a totally different issue.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/alert/index.cfm?alertid=9#Tech1 http://www.fusionauthority.com/alert/index.cfm?alertid=5#Tech2 > I wouldn't declare it dead for the sake of readability. That above > anything is a good reason not to use it. > > ~Todd > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Dinowitz wrote: > > > I really wish that people using my documents (originally posted in issues of FA) >put down where they got the information from. I see chunks of information on that >page taken directly from me. > > Now as for IIS() under MX. I've tested it heavily and there is literally no >difference speed wise between IIF and CFIF. Counting on the run, you can see the >numbers change in the .001 millisecond range which is nothing at all, especially as >the numbers change for both and there is no clear pattern. > > That being said, I declare that the "best practice" of not using IIF() is dead as >of MX. > > > > -- > ============================================================ > Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | > Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | > http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ | > http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator) | > http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | > ============================================================ > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
