> MM's
> CF engine produces Java byte code directly it'd be nearly impossible
> for MM
> to port to .NET without re-writing. Remember that New Atlanta's
> engine is
> an interpreter and not a compiler.
>
I would like to make a clarification that I think is important when
comparing CF and BD. The CF engine does use a compiler approach that
produces Java byte code. BD however isn't strictly an interpreter. It
certainly uses an interpretive approach, but like CF, all of the tags
are Java classes created ahead of time. Thus, you could think of BD as
an interpreter for basic logic, but the tags's logic is actually
compiled.
Anyway, the point I want to make is that comparing the two products
from an approach point of view is more complicated than it first
appears.
-Matt
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
