Might I suggest that you look at the decompiled java code produced by each
version of your code.
I have found that the non-cfscript version has more whitespace code generated
while the actual "meat" of the code is compiled to the same thing.
So, in general, cfscript produces faster code than its non-cfscript
counterpart.
HTH
Regards,
Rob Rusher
--- Qasim Rasheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Aside from the argument of cfml and cfscript, have you thought about
> using Java StringBuffer class for string manipulation. It is
> definitely way faster than regular string manipulation.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:54:31 +0200, Kevin J. Miller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CFMX 6.1: I have a routine for parsing some log files that is heinously
> slow
> > (string parsing being arguably never one of cf's strengths if memory
> > serves). To make a long story short I did the routine almost entirely in
> > cfscript, it just *felt* more cfscript-y and so I did it this way (it also
> > only took me an hour to write, vs a couple days in an alternate method -
> see
> > final note).
> >
> > After showing it to another developer he asked why I did it in cfscript vs.
> > cfml. I answered as before, 'it just felt more like a cfscriptish
> routine',
> > followed by 'and so what, if cf is all compiled to servlets why should it
> > matter if something is done cfscript vs cfml?'. His reply was that he had
> > read/heard that while cfml is compiled to java, cfscript is left intact and
> > is interpreted by 'cf tags' at runtime. Can anyone confirm this? While
> its
> > certainly known that there are speed differences between some cfml/cfscript
> > implementations of the same thing, I hadn't given it much thought after
> > moving to MX (see www.developer.be 's benchmarking articles for more).
> >
> > BTW, I'm redoing the routine as a sql server DTS, so while I don't really
> > need any suggestions on resolving my speed issue (it's a one or two time
> > thing at most), I *am* curious if the statement regarding compilation of
> > cfscript, or lack thereof, is accurate.
> >
> > TIA
> > Kevin
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
> > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
> > in the message of the email.
> >
> > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
> > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
> >
> > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
> www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
> in the message of the email.
>
> CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
> by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
>
> An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
> www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
