/software/solaris/jit/
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Native compilation of a Java class is completely different from
JIT which is
different from
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I dont think ... Java's Bytecode is the same as C# MSIL..
They dont perform the same... I think C#'s MSIL or compiled code
To Matt's comment..
I dont think Java's Bytecode is the same as C# MSIL.. or it works the
way...
IF it did.. we would see same performance and its NOT.
I am a member of the Mono project which is building .NET for the Linux
platform. I would suggest believing my actual experience and
Then, I guess there is no point in paying attention to best practices
or any other discipline that leads to writing efficient code.
Best practices and writing efficient code has nothing to do with code
optimization.
Taking that line of thought further, we should not worry about sloppy
-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
I'm on vacation, so I don't have the time nor do I feel like finding
documentation to prove my point.
I havent found any docs that prove your point... NOR am i going to
waste my time to research and prove your point.
First google hit for Java's Bytecode is the same as C# MSIL:
C#, as
If you saying Java's Bytecode is the SAME as C#'s MSIL code,
C# MSIL code is Platform Independent?
Joe
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I'm on vacation, so I don't have the time nor do I feel like finding
documentation to prove my point.
I havent found any docs that prove your point... NOR am i going to
waste my time to research and prove your point.
First google hit
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 10:46 , Joe Eugene wrote:
True, *similar*(concept) emphasized, then the CLR plays a big role in code
execution.. translating MSIL into native code.. *AS Needed*..
C# - compiles to MSIL - loaded into CLR - interprets validates code
then uses JIT compiler to
Message -
From: Sean A Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 10:46 , Joe Eugene wrote:
True, *similar*(concept) emphasized, then the CLR plays a big role
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 01:40 , Joe Eugene wrote:
this means less overhead and code will execute even
faster than a traditional C++ program.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that (unfounded) conclusion...
Are you talking about eg(IBM's version) Java Compiler, where you can
complie
Native compilation of a Java class is completely different from JIT which is
different from straight interpretation. Ideally when a method is called it
is compiled just in time to native instructions and then the native
instructions are executed, this can often be faster, even on a first run,
: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Native compilation of a Java class is completely different from JIT which is
different from straight interpretation. Ideally when a method is called it
is compiled just in time to native instructions
Sean,
This is what i understand from Microsoft's documentation. In Theory
MS says there is no difference between C#.net code and VB.net code but they
also push C# and say C# is optimized to perform better.
One of our senior MS developer even proved this right.. MS says
C# is their biggest weapon
I think the point that Joe (and I) am trying to make is that
while looping a million times is unrealistic, it does
illustrate a problem -- the code is up to 80 times slower.
Yes, you won't have any 1 - 1,000,000 loops in a typical cfm
template, but you may have 100 concurrent users
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
What makes this so compelling (and so frustrating) is that we all are
on the same side!
Dick
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 06:48 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
My point is that it's worthwhile putting things that aren't
presentation
logic in something other than CF where possible. It has always been
worthwhile to do so, and may be more worthwhile now. For years, we've
typically used
always strongly recommended the use of a compiled language
for the middle tier - you'd only do presentation logic
in ASP, and you'd do anything of any complexity in COM
with either C++ or VB. I suspect that's a little different
with .NET, but I'm not sure how different it is.
I think that Matt would agree that this can be a very important
determination if an application, nay web site, scales well.
I would not agree. As I have stated in previous emails; code
optimization is generally a waste of time in the whole scheme of things.
-Matt
FYI... .NET/C#/VB.net gets compiled into MSIL and the runtime runs the
code
compiled* not interpreted. Com's in .NET are supposedly slower
Classes are the new standard of development.
Actually no, MSIL is simply bytecode just like Java that must be
interpreted by a virtual machine. However,
- webappermb
Webapper - Making the NET work
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:18 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
always strongly recommended the use of a compiled language
for the middle
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 09:37 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
I think that Matt would agree that this can be a very important
determination if an application, nay web site, scales well.
I would not agree. As I have stated in previous emails; code
optimization is generally a waste of time
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 11:03 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
Sean, even I can write a pre-compile scan that builds a table of any
variables that are defined and typed -- and the a post-compile scan
that replaces the currently generated code with optimal code for any
variables that are
It appears that I am in a minority (yet, another one) that is concerned
about the performance of CF code.
Pi**in' in the wind, Blowin' on all your friends...
I am curious -- are the majority of CF sites on shared servers; or on
dedicated servers where the owner has the option to use any of
The whole .NET/aspx platform has changed.. Classic ASP is HISTORY(P-Code).
NO COM+/COM.. write classes and web services with .NET. The same class can
be
used with multiple Languages.
To my understanding C#.NET performs better than any other
code(JSP/CFM/PHP/VB).
Most of .NET stuff is NOT backward
Sounds RAD to me. :)
Kevin Graeme
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 09:37 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
I think that Matt
Likewise, it's not necessarily true that if it takes
five seconds to add two numbers, it'll take ten
seconds to do the same thing twice.
Do you have any test numbers to prove the above?
I think you're missing the point, which is simply that iterative tests
aren't representative of
I dont think ... Java's Bytecode is the same as C# MSIL..
They dont perform the same... I think C#'s MSIL or compiled code is closer
to machine code and it performs better than bytecode..
Here are some docs..
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Tutorials/CSTutorial1AN.asp#Getting%20Started%2
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: quinta-feira, 19 de setembro de 2002 18:45
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I dont think ... Java's Bytecode is the same as C# MSIL..
They dont perform the same... I think C#'s MSIL or compiled
code is closer to machine code and it performs
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 03:07 , Alex Hubner wrote:
Does anybody noticed performance differences (such as Joe's looping
code) between CFMX for J2EE and stand-alone CFMX Servers?
This is a factor of whichever JVM you are using - on Mac OS X, CFMX uses
the built-in Apple 1.3.1 JVM
Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Hi,
I've read an interview with Geoffrey Greene about CFMX for J2EE and
found this:
Q: How are CFML page compiled in this version? How are page requests
: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:35 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Likewise, it's not necessarily true that if it takes
five seconds to add two numbers, it'll take ten
seconds to do the same thing twice.
Do
On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 07:44 PM, Joe Eugene wrote:
instead of atypical test cases like looping a million times.
I think it's more than equal in its competitiveness with other web
application servers. The fact is, most business apps aren't doing
the sorts of calculations that
Aw, 'cmon Ben, one of the great advantages of CF is it can address a
broad range of applications -- all Joe wants do to is extend the range
help MM sell into a broader range of solutions.
Will MM get them all? --Never!.Can MM get more? All of us
certainly hope so!
What if optimizing
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Aw, 'cmon Ben, one of the great advantages of CF is it can address a
broad range of applications -- all Joe wants do to is extend the range
help MM sell into a broader range of solutions.
Will MM get them all? --Never!.Can MM get more? All of us
At 11:17 PM 9/18/2002 -0400, Ben Forta wrote:
So, yep, suggestions on how to improve CF are useful, and we'll keep
doing just that. Just don't expect CF to do it all, it can't and frankly
it shouldn't.
--- Ben
Yet
C'mon Ben! :)
~Todd
Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
that. Just don't expect CF to do it all, it can't and frankly
it shouldn't.
Dick, thanks again on your support...
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Aw, 'cmon Ben, one of the great advantages of CF is it can address a
broad range of applications -- all Joe
-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Dick,
My only point is that they'll always be a better way to do something,
whether it is a small piece of code
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 08:17 PM, Ben Forta wrote:
Dick,
Oh, I agree. CF should keep getting better (and I believe it has been
doing just that).
My
Would the below be an easy change in CFMX?
cfset int foobar = 1
or
cfscript
int foobar = 1;
/cfscript
Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Integer instead of the following.
cfset foobar = 1
or
cfscript
foobar = 1;
/cfscript
Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Variable.
Joe
Matt Liotta wrote:
Every idea/technique that has been suggested thus far for code
optimization is a waste of time for almost all applications. Sure some
of these ideas/techniques code save a few milliseconds here and there,
but they offer very small gains in scalability. There are much
Perhaps you should start doing some testing... and come with some numbers.
Would it? Doesn't for instance cfparam do type checking?
Besides, I don't see much difference with using var to declare a non
typed variable to be local inside a function and to use int to declare
a variable to be an
ways to make even bad code
perform well, and it just makes good code perform better.
-Dan
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: code optimization (was RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test
Code
: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Would the below be an easy change in CFMX?
cfset int foobar = 1
or
cfscript
int foobar = 1;
/cfscript
Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Integer instead of the following.
cfset foobar = 1
or
cfscript
foobar = 1;
/cfscript
Would
As you said it yourself (it was you, right?) there is a difference
between performance and scalability. And I think most people are
discussing performance here.
There is a difference between performance and scalability and most
people are discussing performance, which is my point. If people
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:10 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:18 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
But, if the problem is caused by lack of typing, it seems
Try javacast, which is a new function in cfmx
cfscript
x = 1;
y = javacast(int,x);
/cfscript
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I doubt anyone outside
-
From: Michael Corbridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Try javacast, which is a new function in cfmx
cfscript
x = 1;
y = javacast(int,x);
/cfscript
-Original Message-
From
So what does the $5000 software do?
That's a silly question. If you want to quickly write presentation logic, CF
MX is the right tool for the job. If you want to do something else, use the
appropriate tool for that job.
Oh Yea i can start writing this with C#, that does NOT
require any
JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been around since CF 4.5. Its
purpose is for helping CF determine which method to call in Java classes
that have overloaded methods.
matt, can you elaborate on this? i've never been able to cast my way thru
overloaded java methods with mx. i've always had
-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I doubt anyone outside of Macromedia can answer that.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been
Take a look at the JavaCast documentation; it is pretty easy to
understand how JavaCast should work. The major problem with JavaCast is
matt i know how it works, just that i've never seen it work as you
suggested.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
So what does the $5000 software do?
That's a silly question. If you want to quickly write presentation logic,
CF
MX is the right tool for the job. If you want to do something else, use
the
appropriate tool for that job.
Oh Yea i can
: Paul Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been around since CF 4.5. Its
purpose is for helping CF determine which method to call in Java classes
Dave, I hope this is not a Joke!. Are u suggesting to write
the Presentation logic in CFMX and use C# to write heavy
duty business components?
No, not really. I'm suggesting that you write the presentation logic in CF
MX and use Java to write heavy-duty business components, if you think
Joe Eugene wrote:
Perhaps you should start doing some testing... and come with some numbers.
How do you quantify how much a language changes in numbers?
Jochem
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these
the Issue and point it out to
the community.
The Rest is in the hands of MM.. whether they want to solve it OR not.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:44 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
always strongly recommended the use of a compiled language for the
middle tier - you'd only do presentation logic in ASP, and you'd do
anything of any complexity in COM
Probably just disk storage -- be nice to have a cfsetting type option,
though
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Joe Eugene wrote:
Are there any known issues if we leave this set to *true*
param-namecoldfusion.compiler.saveJava/param-name
param-valuetrue/param-value
perhaps we need an update/patch on the cfmx compiler
for intelligent parsing.
Maybe, but on the other hand, it may be the way it is for a reason.
First of all, this is a common issue with code generators, which is all CF
really is when you think about it. This particular code generator is
I got similar results -- and you can read the code!
Dick
J2 1.3.1
[TiBook:~/desktop] cfmx% javac JavaScale.java
[TiBook:~/desktop] cfmx% java JavaScale
5050
1032283753982
1032283754009
Elapsed Time:27
[TiBook:~/desktop] cfmx% java JavaScale
5050
1032283760192
1032283760220
, September 17, 2002 1:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
perhaps we need an update/patch on the cfmx compiler
for intelligent parsing.
Maybe, but on the other hand, it may be the way it is for a reason.
First of all, this is a common issue with code generators, which
Just chiming in here...
If you're doing some code that you know can be optimized (by looking at the
java file produced by CFMX), then doesn't is make sense to just optimize it
yourself in java? I would imagine that if you ARE looking at the java code,
then you at least know enough to get
and it will still be faster
right?
So whats your argument to your CLIENT for using CFMX just RAD?
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Darron J. Schall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Just chiming
marriage, when used in conjunction
at the right times. :-)
-Darron
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
That way you don't have to rely on the CFMX compiler at all
is a great marriage, when used in conjunction
at the right times. :-)
-Darron
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
That way you don't have to rely on the CFMX
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:18 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
But, if the problem is caused by lack of typing, it seems to me that
this is something MM can fix rather easily by allowing type definition
by those who want to do it, and generating efficient code if it is
present or use the
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Daron
I think the point
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:10 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:18 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
But, if the problem is caused by lack of typing, it seems to me that
this is something MM can fix rather easily by allowing type definition
by those who want
71 matches
Mail list logo
