On 16/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really don't want to start a bashing session, but I have some
concerns that those much more knowledgeable than me should hopefully
be able to clarify.
Recently, I saw this article via Catalyst Planet: http://
letsgetdugg.com/feed/view/Catalyst_vs_Rails_vs_Django_Cook_off
Essentially, according to his test, which doesn't take into account
ORM performance, Rails & Django knock the socks of Catalyst.
In victori's remarks, he calls for a change in Catalyst and points to
the other advantages to to this framework, mostly related to ease of
coding. While the whole reason I came to Catalyst is because I'm
comfortable with Perl and don't want to learn Ruby, I'm worried that
my Catalyst application won't perform as well when/if my app usage
becomes very significant. Should I be concerned?
Again, I'm not interesting in hearing about how Rails/Ruby/Django/
Python sucks, but in facts about real performance of Catalyst.
The first thing I noticed was that the content length of the document
served by catalyst was longer than that served by rails.
He doesn't seem to have tried very hard to test "apples for apples" (his words)
Also see the very good comment by "JayK" as to why it's not a very
good real-world test at all.
http://letsgetdugg.com/view/Catalyst_vs_Rails_vs_Django_Cook_off
I'm not saying Catalyst's performance couldn't be improved, or that
it's not slower than Rails - just that a bad benchmark is worthless.
Carl
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
