Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
- Original Message - From: Kwang Suh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 8:53 PM Subject: Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question JSP: Slow CFMX: Slow PHP: Fast ASP: Very Slow ASP.NET: Slow Um, wow -- fast and slow at what? Development? Compilation? Execution? Performance under load? Math calculations? etc etc? CFMX, JSP compile to java byte code and get executed by a JVM. PHP, ASP compiles to pseudocode and is run by a C++ interpreter. ASP.NET is compiled to .NET bytecode (that's not the right term -- I'm not a .NET guy, but it's equivalent) and is run by the CLR What's that mean for performance? Nada. Your code is the issue. At least for the first 90% or so of performance -- then it comes down to server, OS, hardware, database, and application server tweaking. But, that's only half the story. There's a big difference between _scalability_ and _performance_. JSP, CFMX, ASP.NET are all highly scalable. So, even though it takes 100ms for any single request, when you have, say, 1 users, it still takes 100ms. Other technologies (cough classic ASP, PHP cough) fall flat and die at such high volumes. I had no clue I could scale to 10,000 users on the same hardware with no performance degredation in CFMX (or JSP or ASP.NET for that matter). Of course there's a difference -- but it's nowhere near that easy or linear. But back to the original question: I'm new to this list but have always been a fan of CF's elegance and power for years. I am a manager in dev shop and the classic argument arises when CF comes up: can CF perform on par with jsp? Php? Asp? .net? Yes. It's on par, depending on which test your try. Is it good at matrix calculations? No. Is it good at running an ecommerce site? Yeah. It's on par with other web application servers as far as performance. Regards, John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/TransitionPoint ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
Um, wow -- fast and slow at what? Development? Compilation? Execution? Performance under load? Math calculations? etc etc? CFMX, JSP compile to java byte code and get executed by a JVM. PHP, ASP compiles to pseudocode and is run by a C++ interpreter. ASP.NET is compiled to .NET bytecode (that's not the right term -- I'm not a .NET guy, but it's equivalent) and is run by the CLR What's that mean for performance? Nada. Your code is the issue. At least for the first 90% or so of performance -- then it comes down to server, OS, hardware, database, and application server tweaking. He was asking for performance. And those technologies are mostly slow. Write an ecommerce site in assembly. It'll probably scream. But it'll take forever to write, and writing scalability features into it will be a major undertaking. Are you disagreeing with the fact that they are slow? Because, heck, they are. But that's the price that paid for quick(er) development time, scalability, reliability, and convenience. And that's not a bad thing. It sure is a good thing. But, that's only half the story. There's a big difference between _scalability_ and _performance_. JSP, CFMX, ASP.NET are all highly scalable. So, even though it takes 100ms for any single request, when you have, say, 1 users, it still takes 100ms. Other technologies (cough classic ASP, PHP cough) fall flat and die at such high volumes. I had no clue I could scale to 10,000 users on the same hardware with no performance degredation in CFMX (or JSP or ASP.NET for that matter). Of course there's a difference -- but it's nowhere near that easy or linear. No, it's not that simple. But some systems just will not scale, no matter how much hardware or code optimization or whatever what factors you have under your control you optimize. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
He was asking for performance. And those technologies are mostly slow. Write an ecommerce site in assembly. He was also asking for a comparison to JSP and ASP etc, not assembly. Your initial answer was a poor generalization at best, though your comments below do reveal more about your viewpoint. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc. --- cell: 678-637-5072 aim: cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question Um, wow -- fast and slow at what? Development? Compilation? Execution? Performance under load? Math calculations? etc etc? CFMX, JSP compile to java byte code and get executed by a JVM. PHP, ASP compiles to pseudocode and is run by a C++ interpreter. ASP.NET is compiled to .NET bytecode (that's not the right term -- I'm not a .NET guy, but it's equivalent) and is run by the CLR What's that mean for performance? Nada. Your code is the issue. At least for the first 90% or so of performance -- then it comes down to server, OS, hardware, database, and application server tweaking. He was asking for performance. And those technologies are mostly slow. Write an ecommerce site in assembly. It'll probably scream. But it'll take forever to write, and writing scalability features into it will be a major undertaking. Are you disagreeing with the fact that they are slow? Because, heck, they are. But that's the price that paid for quick(er) development time, scalability, reliability, and convenience. And that's not a bad thing. It sure is a good thing. But, that's only half the story. There's a big difference between _scalability_ and _performance_. JSP, CFMX, ASP.NET are all highly scalable. So, even though it takes 100ms for any single request, when you have, say, 1 users, it still takes 100ms. Other technologies (cough classic ASP, PHP cough) fall flat and die at such high volumes. I had no clue I could scale to 10,000 users on the same hardware with no performance degredation in CFMX (or JSP or ASP.NET for that matter). Of course there's a difference -- but it's nowhere near that easy or linear. No, it's not that simple. But some systems just will not scale, no matter how much hardware or code optimization or whatever what factors you have under your control you optimize. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
There's still a lot of this that goes on: Developer tries technology x by writing a page, or perhaps a mini-app. Developer is disappointed that it's slow - perhaps they're getting 150ms times even on simple pages. Developer throws away tech x. Developer tries tech y. Same result. Developer tries PHP. Hey, it's fast! So let's use that! I'd rather have someone realize that, up front, many of the big players offer products that can plonder along. But for good reason. - Original Message - From: Cameron Childress [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:37 AM Subject: RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question He was asking for performance. And those technologies are mostly slow. Write an ecommerce site in assembly. He was also asking for a comparison to JSP and ASP etc, not assembly. Your initial answer was a poor generalization at best, though your comments below do reveal more about your viewpoint. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc. --- cell: 678-637-5072 aim: cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question Um, wow -- fast and slow at what? Development? Compilation? Execution? Performance under load? Math calculations? etc etc? CFMX, JSP compile to java byte code and get executed by a JVM. PHP, ASP compiles to pseudocode and is run by a C++ interpreter. ASP.NET is compiled to .NET bytecode (that's not the right term -- I'm not a .NET guy, but it's equivalent) and is run by the CLR What's that mean for performance? Nada. Your code is the issue. At least for the first 90% or so of performance -- then it comes down to server, OS, hardware, database, and application server tweaking. He was asking for performance. And those technologies are mostly slow. Write an ecommerce site in assembly. It'll probably scream. But it'll take forever to write, and writing scalability features into it will be a major undertaking. Are you disagreeing with the fact that they are slow? Because, heck, they are. But that's the price that paid for quick(er) development time, scalability, reliability, and convenience. And that's not a bad thing. It sure is a good thing. But, that's only half the story. There's a big difference between _scalability_ and _performance_. JSP, CFMX, ASP.NET are all highly scalable. So, even though it takes 100ms for any single request, when you have, say, 1 users, it still takes 100ms. Other technologies (cough classic ASP, PHP cough) fall flat and die at such high volumes. I had no clue I could scale to 10,000 users on the same hardware with no performance degredation in CFMX (or JSP or ASP.NET for that matter). Of course there's a difference -- but it's nowhere near that easy or linear. No, it's not that simple. But some systems just will not scale, no matter how much hardware or code optimization or whatever what factors you have under your control you optimize. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
He was asking for performance. And those technologies are mostly slow. Write an ecommerce site in assembly. It'll probably scream. But it'll take forever to write, and writing scalability features into it will be a major undertaking. Unless you're also going to write all your other components (like the database) in assembly, and you also happen to know how write assembly very well, I doubt that the site would be noticeably faster at runtime. Most of what makes dynamic sites slow, no matter what they're written in, isn't due to any inherent slowness of the language. It doesn't really matter in the vast majority of cases how fast CFMX can do math, for example, even though it might be much slower than other languages (even JSP) at doing math. There simply isn't usually enough of that stuff to make a difference, in most business applications. If you are doing such things heavily in your application, those sorts of things should be done in a different way, such as within the database or using Java directly. What makes a difference, when it comes to performance, is usually more along the lines of how efficiently the database is used, and how well the developers have implemented caching and other techniques which move work from being done at runtime to being done before runtime. At least, that's been my experience. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
Wherever there were perfomance issues they always related back to bad coding or dodgy infrastructure. Not always true. CFHTTP, the dodgy locking in 4.0, CFFILE all were tags that, even if you coded properly, liked to die. Did I mention CFHTTP? You neglected CFOBJECT/COM, which never worked all that well in CF (compared to ASP, for example), and you really oversimplified the dodgy locking - CF 3 gave us memory variables but no way to lock them at all! Good times, good times ... Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
I'm new to this list but have always been a fan of CF's elegance and power for years. I am a manager in dev shop and the classic argument arises when CF comes up: can CF perform on par with jsp? Php? Asp? .net? Yes, yes, yes, it can perform on par with all of the above. Whatever that means. All of them are more than adequate for the vast majority of web applications, although PHP seems to me to be a bit limited with regard to external APIs, compared to J2EE and .NET. Then again, I'm no PHP expert. Is there anything out there in terms of a comparative study of some sort that lays it all out? My guess is that it will be slower than Jsp since its in effect a layer on top of java (so is JSP I suppose, but I'm guessing its closer to Java than CF is, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). JSP and CFM files are treated almost identically - they're both compiled to Java classes that conform to the Servlet API. So there's no difference in that regard. CFMX, due to its typeless variables, is less efficient with regard to mathematical operations, I imagine, but that doesn't make much of a difference in most applications. If it does make a difference in your application, you'd probably be just as well served by writing Java classes to handle those operations, and invoking them from CF, as by using JSP instead of CFMX. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
Ok, here are my final words to the original poster. From a web application server perspective, performance is irrelevant. Do not look at performance as a major (or even minor) determining factor in what to pick. Instead, look at scalability. Find out how scalable each of the technologies are. Find out what you need in terms of requirements for scalability, and use that as a factor in matching your needs to a particular technology. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
Rich this is a question that has been aired in various forms many times. I can give you my experience having used CF seriously since version 1.54 and having worked for Allaire and MM as a field based Consultant (read Troubleshooter). My view is very much from a CF angle. From a coding standpoint in terms of getting an application coded well and out of the door nothing has ever bettered CF. The advent of Fusebox also added the possibility of using a well distributed framework which we find is greatly in demand in the larger enterprise operations. Fusebox is moving into other paradigms (PHP, ASP, JSP) etc but it much more evolved for CF. In my time at Allaire and Macromedia I saw applications of all sizes. Wherever there were perfomance issues they always related back to bad coding or dodgy infrastructure. Once these items were corrected CF was always able to scream. I had two large CF user clients paranoid that they had lost most of their site users because stability and system loads were suddenly amazingly better. One of them was one of the worlds large Auto manufacturers and they had bloody busy sites. So my point of view is that CF Sites coded well in a workable scalable and understandable framework cannot be beaten from a web application standpoint and this is historical. When you add to that the possibilities before us with the MX Family, all the rest really do pale IMHO. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Original Message --- Hello all: I'm new to this list but have always been a fan of CF's elegance and power for years. I am a manager in dev shop and the classic argument arises when CF comes up: can CF perform on par with jsp? Php? Asp? .net? Is there anything out there in terms of a comparative study of some sort that lays it all out? My guess is that it will be slower than Jsp since its in effect a layer on top of java (so is JSP I suppose, but I'm guessing its closer to Java than CF is, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). I'd be glad to present to case for future technology decisions where I'm at, but I don't feel like I have the ammunition. Anyone? Thanks, Rich ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
JSP: Slow CFMX: Slow PHP: Fast ASP: Very Slow ASP.NET: Slow But, that's only half the story. There's a big difference between _scalability_ and _performance_. JSP, CFMX, ASP.NET are all highly scalable. So, even though it takes 100ms for any single request, when you have, say, 1 users, it still takes 100ms. Other technologies (cough classic ASP, PHP cough) fall flat and die at such high volumes. - Original Message - From: Rich Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:14 PM Subject: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question Hello all: I'm new to this list but have always been a fan of CF's elegance and power for years. I am a manager in dev shop and the classic argument arises when CF comes up: can CF perform on par with jsp? Php? Asp? .net? Is there anything out there in terms of a comparative study of some sort that lays it all out? My guess is that it will be slower than Jsp since its in effect a layer on top of java (so is JSP I suppose, but I'm guessing its closer to Java than CF is, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). I'd be glad to present to case for future technology decisions where I'm at, but I don't feel like I have the ammunition. Anyone? Thanks, Rich ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
Wherever there were perfomance issues they always related back to bad coding or dodgy infrastructure. Not always true. CFHTTP, the dodgy locking in 4.0, CFFILE all were tags that, even if you coded properly, liked to die. Did I mention CFHTTP? ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
Thanks for the insight. This is really helpful. It's pretty amazing that this stigma continues to dog CF to this day. It is still perceived as a designer's platform. One colleague referred to it as sort of like Front Page. Heh. Thanks again, Rich -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question Rich this is a question that has been aired in various forms many times. I can give you my experience having used CF seriously since version 1.54 and having worked for Allaire and MM as a field based Consultant (read Troubleshooter). My view is very much from a CF angle. From a coding standpoint in terms of getting an application coded well and out of the door nothing has ever bettered CF. The advent of Fusebox also added the possibility of using a well distributed framework which we find is greatly in demand in the larger enterprise operations. Fusebox is moving into other paradigms (PHP, ASP, JSP) etc but it much more evolved for CF. In my time at Allaire and Macromedia I saw applications of all sizes. Wherever there were perfomance issues they always related back to bad coding or dodgy infrastructure. Once these items were corrected CF was always able to scream. I had two large CF user clients paranoid that they had lost most of their site users because stability and system loads were suddenly amazingly better. One of them was one of the worlds large Auto manufacturers and they had bloody busy sites. So my point of view is that CF Sites coded well in a workable scalable and understandable framework cannot be beaten from a web application standpoint and this is historical. When you add to that the possibilities before us with the MX Family, all the rest really do pale IMHO. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Original Message --- Hello all: I'm new to this list but have always been a fan of CF's elegance and power for years. I am a manager in dev shop and the classic argument arises when CF comes up: can CF perform on par with jsp? Php? Asp? .net? Is there anything out there in terms of a comparative study of some sort that lays it all out? My guess is that it will be slower than Jsp since its in effect a layer on top of java (so is JSP I suppose, but I'm guessing its closer to Java than CF is, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). I'd be glad to present to case for future technology decisions where I'm at, but I don't feel like I have the ammunition. Anyone? Thanks, Rich ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question
ouch! - Original Message - From: Rich Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question Thanks for the insight. This is really helpful. It's pretty amazing that this stigma continues to dog CF to this day. It is still perceived as a designer's platform. One colleague referred to it as sort of like Front Page. Heh. Thanks again, Rich -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Good Ol' Cold Fusion Performance Question Rich this is a question that has been aired in various forms many times. I can give you my experience having used CF seriously since version 1.54 and having worked for Allaire and MM as a field based Consultant (read Troubleshooter). My view is very much from a CF angle. From a coding standpoint in terms of getting an application coded well and out of the door nothing has ever bettered CF. The advent of Fusebox also added the possibility of using a well distributed framework which we find is greatly in demand in the larger enterprise operations. Fusebox is moving into other paradigms (PHP, ASP, JSP) etc but it much more evolved for CF. In my time at Allaire and Macromedia I saw applications of all sizes. Wherever there were perfomance issues they always related back to bad coding or dodgy infrastructure. Once these items were corrected CF was always able to scream. I had two large CF user clients paranoid that they had lost most of their site users because stability and system loads were suddenly amazingly better. One of them was one of the worlds large Auto manufacturers and they had bloody busy sites. So my point of view is that CF Sites coded well in a workable scalable and understandable framework cannot be beaten from a web application standpoint and this is historical. When you add to that the possibilities before us with the MX Family, all the rest really do pale IMHO. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Original Message --- Hello all: I'm new to this list but have always been a fan of CF's elegance and power for years. I am a manager in dev shop and the classic argument arises when CF comes up: can CF perform on par with jsp? Php? Asp? .net? Is there anything out there in terms of a comparative study of some sort that lays it all out? My guess is that it will be slower than Jsp since its in effect a layer on top of java (so is JSP I suppose, but I'm guessing its closer to Java than CF is, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). I'd be glad to present to case for future technology decisions where I'm at, but I don't feel like I have the ammunition. Anyone? Thanks, Rich ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
