t;
Sent: Aug 20, 2003 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: Mach II. Is it faster than Fusebox 3?
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:15 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: Re: Mach II. Is it faster than Fusebox 3?
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:15 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Mach II. Is it faster than Fusebox 3?
>
> It would perhaps be instructive to find a reasonably sized
> FB3 app and
> t
On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 12:06 US/Pacific, Haggerty, Mike wrote:
> With all due respect, I think the distinctive differences between FB
> and
> Mach II do not prevent one from making a judgment as to which framework
> is 'faster' for a given project.
Well, the code would have to be completely
of overall speed enhancement within the framework.
M
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:53 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Mach II. Is it faster than Fusebox 3?
Nicholas, there are major differences between Mach II and Fusebox 3.0
wh
Nicholas, there are major differences between Mach II and Fusebox 3.0 which really
make them incomparable. Here are some major differences.
FB 30 is a framework for procedural programming style (as against an OO based style).
Mach II is firmly rooted in an OO based style.
Mach II uses ColdFu
5 matches
Mail list logo