On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 12:35 , Joe Eugene wrote: > in cases where you can <CFSCRIPT> other wise.. i dont see.. how you > can
Well, there's no real reason why cfscript should be faster (or slower) than using tags now - it all compiles to similar Java code. > <cfset x=""> > <cfloop index="i" from="1" to="100000"> > <cfset x=x&i> > </cfloop> Are you saying this particular test runs slower on CFMX than CF5? (I'd be surprised if either system could cope with the resultant 'x' string). > All the basic functions in CF are almost the same.. Its only when you > get > into CUSTOM TAGS/functions which can be implemented in .CFC which can be > called CFMX optimized code... But custom tags and CFCs now run about the same speed (i.e., custom tags are much faster in CFMX than they were in CF5). > I am trying to do the research.. you guys might be right.. There > might be > some internal CFMX settings that prove.. CFMX Scales better than... CF.50. > . Keep us posted on results you find - but make sure you post the tests too so we can verify those results. > Well..where are the MAGIC SETTINGS (MM docs.. dont think so!).. There are no "magic settings". Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ 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/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
