> Is that not the case?
Yes, you can nearly always write something that's architected completely towards your specific app that runs a smidgeon faster than something like FB or Mach-II, but in my experience:
- overhead of the FB3 framework is usually of the order of a couple of milliseconds at most. Mach-II tends to be a little more, but usually no more than 10ms or so in production mode. If you set it into production mode and you're still getting overheads of 1s or more, then there's something wrong with your code, or DB, or server setup, or something similar - Sean's example of MM using Mach-II being a case in point.
- Squeezing a few extra milliseconds out of a page execution time has to be balanced against the gains in maintainability, extensibility, development/debug times, and learning curve for new team members that you get from using a standard methodology
- If your app is poorly thought out, rushed, or sloppily implemented, it'll probably run like a two-legged-dog on mogadon whether you're using FB3, FB4, Mach-II, XFB, Struts, CF-Objects or your own entirely custom architecture. Ditto for its maintainability, extensibility, bug-fixing, etc etc etc.
Just my two pennorth.
( If this ends up as yet another "my framework is better than your framework" flame war, I'm off to the pub! ;) )
Cheers,
Alistair
Alistair Davidson
Senior Technical Developer
Headshift.com
------------------------------------------
HEADSHIFT >> www.headshift.com
T: 020 7357 7358
------------------------------------------
smarter > simpler > social >
Personal techie blog : http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
