True true. I think that if somebody mentions speed alone, its fair to assume
they really just want to stir up a fight. I mean c'mon. Look at Java. Ain't
nobody gonna accuse Java of being the speediest way of executing code. If
speed alone ruled, we'd be writing assembler code and burning a webserver
right into an EPROM and loading it up on a PCI card. BTW, that would be a
mega-cool thing, you'd have to admit; 100% hacker-proof.
Then, that does bring up the real issue; flexability. How flexible would a
hard-burned app on a PCI card be? Not at all. But yeah, it would be fast.
In our case, Fusebox presents case for good speed with maximum flexibility.
I think if we come up with some meaningful metrics, and generate stats, that
would do a lot of good.
However, what sort of stats would we generate?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 6:17 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: Test of Fusebox vs. Non-Fusebox applications: Have there
> been any?
>
> ***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
> A non-fusebox site will always be slightly faster than a fusebox site if
> both are written with best programming practices. {redacted}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
