> which isn't required, and using it means that you've
> got "bloat code" which is going to slow down the site
> (a fraction) and cause complications which aren't
> necessary
I think this is an inescapable outcome whenever any generic framework is
used. The point of using a framework isn't to maximize performance, but to
maximize ease of maintenance. If Mach II does that sufficiently, it's a good
choice for the MM site or any other.
Personally, I'm not entirely sold on Mach II yet, but I think it may be a
suitable framework for CFMX applications.
> The size of MM with their resources should have allowed
> them to build something from scratch which did the job
> perfectly, had no superfluous code and was optimized to
> the hilt would have made a better impression of the
> product as your pages would be the best they possibly
> could, rather than using MachII's coding/template structure
Sure, they could have done this, but I don't know that it would have been
the right choice. Keep in mind that the expenses they accrue are reflected
in the cost of the software you buy. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
