Fusebox 4 vs Mach-II
In working with these frameworks for more object oriented code in ColdFusion, I have noticed some interesting facts. It appears that Fusebox 4 is way faster for small applications from an execution standpoint than Mach-II. Mach-II is of course way more robust in terms of near OOP utopia, however a decent level of simulated object-orientation is possible using Fusebox 4.1 if you take advantage of it's ability to natively work with CFCs.
In messing around with the sample applications that are available from the fusebox.org site, I have been modelling some of the speeds in my local development environment. When I tell both that they are in a production environment, their respective speed picks up admirally. If however, they are set to development, they remain quite slow. I would greatly prefer Mach-ii over Fusebox 4.1 for huge applications, as it seems to do much better with object orientation while using CFCs. It's light framework does a much better job than the heavier framework that supports Fusebox 4.1. Mach-ii seems to have been built to specifically work with ColdFusion MX and better, while Fusebox 4 still needs to support ColdFusion 5. This appears to add the extra weight to the runtime. If you want to get as close as you can to true OOP in ColdFusion MX, then Mach-ii is as good as it gets.