On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 12:06 US/Pacific, Haggerty, Mike wrote: > With all due respect, I think the distinctive differences between FB > and > Mach II do not prevent one from making a judgment as to which framework > is 'faster' for a given project.
Well, the code would have to be completely different so I agree with Mike Brunt that a comparable is likely impossible (since no one is likely to have converted a FB3 app to Mach II and timed both). > Also, individual > projects will likely meet with individual results based on the > capabilities of the development team. Amen to that! > I am currently porting an application to Mach II and noticing some > exceptional speed increases on a project that primarily displays large > amounts of cached data. My thoughts are that using the views in Mach II > could be somewhat more efficent than the layouts approach used in FB. It would perhaps be instructive to find a reasonably sized FB3 app and then port it to FB4 and also convert it to Mach II and test all three. But that's asking a big commitment of time and effort from folks! Another factor that I think is more important is TCO based on the maintenance overhead of applications written in FB3, FB4 and Mach II. One of the prime drivers for Mach II is to address the maintenance cost overhead through the use of OO to improve reusability and increase flexibility (through loose coupling, encapsulation etc). Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
