“is faster” doesn’t say anything, and the text underneath doesn’t clarify it imho…
Maybe “lucee language focuses on performance”?
Oow, love the initiative btw 
[quote=“frinky, post:5, topic:183, full:true”]
“is faster” doesn’t say anything, and the text underneath doesn’t clarify it imho… [/quote]
Well if one is assuming “CFML engines” (which is usually the case when Railo/Lucee bods make this sort of statement) then I think it’s probably not something the manifesto should mention. Lucee - and by that I mean .lucee - shouldn’t position itself as competing with CFML: it’s complementary to it.
I just wouldn’t bother mentioning it at all. If it’s mentioned, then it’s going to draw comparisons, and if someone starts comparing it to PHP or Python or even other JVM languages, I doubt it’s gonna come off too well.
I’d also like to see some proper, thorough, real-world tests of Lucee up against ColdFusion 11 performance-wise before LAS should be even mentioning performance in that particular area. My recent metrics have favoured ColdFusion of Lucee. But the tests weren’t thorough or real world, but CF has closed the gap that Railo used to have over it, in my experience. Lucee had better make sure it’s actually competing in areas it’s making claims about.
I think Lucee should rather more position themselves in the Ruby mold: it can’t win on raw performance, and no-one’s gonna be using Lucee when raw performance matters anyhow, so position it from the language-elegance, pleasure to program with, and easy of use. This is where Lucee can win.
It can’t win in a meaningful way on performance. Don’t try. Pick better fights to fight. That’s my recommendation.
This is supposed to be a philosophical statement about the approach to Lucee server development, not a direct comparison with other CFML engines or other languages.
What I’m trying to say is that language decisions or indeed any development decision with respect to server internals should treat performance as a critical factor when weighing up what features and/or how to build features.
The only exception being to balance performance against the need for good abstraction; otherwise we’d all be writing in machine code 
OK, fair enough. But you’re not hitting your mark in that case. “Faster” is - by definition - a comparative term. So intrinsically you are stating that it’s faster than [something else]. Which is either other CFML engines, or other languages. Its own previous iterations?
Perhaps you just mean “fast”.
Or perhaps just different wording to articulate what you actually mean, as per your follow-up explanation.
Faster is a comparative term with reference to earlier iterations of the Lucee Server; initially with respect to the CFML dialect (“lucee language is faster”), and later with respect to any change – hence the phrase “evolution of the language”.
Seems pretty clear to me, but then again i wrote it.
The goal of the Manifesto is to have a set of succinct (25 words or less if possible) statements about the grander vision of the platform. If you can think of a snappier turn of phrase for my “lucee language is faster” statement then have a shot 
“Lucee Language is fast”.
There. That wasn’t terribly difficult.
An admirable effort, but for now I think I’ll leave it as it is.
How about “Our dev team places a strong emphasis on performance.”
“Lucee language is faster” doesn’t say anything because the comparison isn’t complete.
I can write “I am faster” and all it leaves is a question mark in the reader’s mind - which isn’t good, because it hampers understanding. Brains get hung up on the question marks a writer’s text leaves behind.