Matt, Based on your statement, I would assume that you have knowledge and experience that I do not possess. (Surely it's not the MM beta program that only super-duper cool dudes are on, since I'm a beta tester as well)
I'll benchmark it now, and post my results (along with the code). I'd be interested in seeing your results as well. If MX beats 5, then: 1) the final release will only widen the gap 2) the final release will be slower than a beta, pre-release, debug build (which I highly doubt) But, for a moment, let's say that scientific results mean nothing. That faster numbers on MX have no bearing on whether J2EE can "keep up". Let's use "logical conclusions based on experience and facts". I (and the rest of cf-talk, I'm sure) would love to hear how pre-compiled byte-code "can't keep up" with the interpreted code->p-code->executed sequence. Remember, no scientific evidence (per you); only logical conclusions. --- Billy Cravens -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:52 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) Except that I can make logical conclusions based on experience and facts now, while you'll have to wait for CFMX to be released, so that you can benchmark it. -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:43 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > I *am* suggesting benchmarking it - would prove or disprove your > statement (as opposed to a "J2EE can't keep up" sound-byte) > > --- > Billy Cravens > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:36 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > I wasn't suggesting benchmarking it; that will come in time. I am just > pointing out that J2EE can't keep up with CF 5, so CFMX won't be able to > either. > > -Matt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:30 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > why bother to benchmark test if it's not the final version......is > anybody > > paying attention to the > > "preview" potion of "preview release" ;-) > > > > Bryan Stevenson > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > t. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Macromedia Associate Partner > > www.macromedia.com > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > > Founder & Director > > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:13 PM > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > Hmm.. every code benchmark I've run says that MX (even in the > debug/beta > > > stages) is faster than 5.. I'll try to post some benchmarking code > when > > > I get the opportunity > > > > > > --- > > > Billy Cravens > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:08 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > Anything built on top of J2EE is going to be slower on a single > machine. > > > If you are looking for a fast server-side scripting language, your > > > choices are PHP, CF 5, and a few niche players. If you don't mind > buying > > > a bunch of machines than something based on J2EE would be the better > > > choice. CFMX fits in this category. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:23 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > > I for one find speed to be a major deciding factor, I really like > that > > > it > > > > is > > > > J2EE compliant, buzzword, buzzword compliant, buzzword this, but I > can > > > > tell > > > > all you Macromedia guys this, if it isn't faster, I won't be able > to > > > > upgrade here. It will be a customer relations nightmare, an app > that > > > once > > > > performed blazingly fast now stalls left and right, I can't be > having > > > > that, > > > > if I test out MX and it really is slower, I will have no choice, > but > > > to > > > > invest my time and resources into another platform for the web > that > > > does > > > > things faster. So whatever you do make this a priority, I am sure > I am > > > not > > > > the only person who thinks this way, heck most of the arguments > > > between > > > > ASP > > > > and CF for the past 3 years has been that ASP is super fast and CF > is > > > > super > > > > slow when in actuallity they are very close to each other. If MX > is > > > that > > > > much slower a lot of us will not be able to fight the good battle > > > anymore > > > > in > > > > defending CF. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Everland III > > > > Dixon Ticonderoga > > > > Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:03 PM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesse, > > > > > > > > Yes, subsequent requests ARE faster than initial requests. But I > have > > > to > > > > say they are still painfully slow when compaired to CF 5. Slow > enough > > > to > > > > be > > > > a non-starter for some of our aps. In addition, if you plan on > selling > > > web > > > > services you already have a big latency problem that you are > > > constantly > > > > battling. Anything time saved on the server greatly benefits the > user > > > > experience - so this is a real issue for the "brave new world". > > > NET's > > > > CLR > > > > is blazingly fast at delivering web service content. CFMX must > > > compete > > > > favorably with it to gain headway in the web services arena. > > > > > > > > -mk > > > > > > > > P.S. - yeah yeah, I know "it's not optimized". But let's be > honest, > > > as a > > > > rule, JSP is pretty doggy. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:39 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > > > > > > Also think about the performance that you're seeing right now. > > > > > > > > On first run, a CFMX page "compiles". The pages are no longer > > > interpreted > > > > on > > > > the fly. This means your initial "First Hit" is going to take a > few > > > > seconds, > > > > but every request after this is going to much faster. > > > > > > > > It's a complaint we've seen on the forums, Ie, "I just installed, > why > > > is > > > > the > > > > admin so slow" the answer is simple, the admin is compiling itself > for > > > the > > > > first time. If you hit the admin after the first time, you'll note > > > it's > > > > much > > > > snappier. > > > > > > > > The "initial compile" bump is being examined and worked on, but it > > > does > > > > not > > > > change the fact that the pages are being COMPILED, not interpreted > as > > > > presvious versions. > > > > > > > > As for Matt's comment about JSP, this should not be the case in > the > > > end. I > > > > know I for one want CFMX to be as fast, and faster still, then > CF5. > > > This > > > > is > > > > our goal. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:39 AM > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5 > > > > > > people using CF at once on an intranet application, (I > > > > > > also use CF from a shared host) there is no advantage > > > > > > to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great reason > > > > > > to upgrade to CF 5.0. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, there are lots of reasons! They're not necessarily > performance > > > > > reasons, though: > > > > > > > > > > 1. The ability to publish and consume web services, > > > > > 2. Verity K2 (since you're not even on CF 5 yet) is much > > > > > faster than the > > > > > previous version of Verity, > > > > > 3. A working Advanced Security interface for developers > > > > > (Sandbox security), > > > > > 4. Charting, > > > > > 5. and much, much more! CFCs, UDFs (again, since you're not > > > > > on CF 5) ... > > > > > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > > > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > > > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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 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
