On 11/16/06, Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cory Watson wrote:
> My original intent was to prod someone that is knowledgeable enough of
> Catalyst's internals to criticize this benchmark's methods to create a
> benchmark that is more friendly to Catalyst's strengths. We've
> established that serving static content is not a fitting use. We've
> established that a single action is also not an appropriate use of
> Catalyst's dispatcher. So we include some content directly in the
> response body. But how many actions must be present for the
> dispatcher to shine? Then we modify the test to use a more realistic
> number and exercise the dispatcher a bit.
This doesn't really solve any problems, though. I think you're
confusing liking something with it being the best. The fact that you
(we) like Catalyst doesn't mean it's faster than anything else.
(Admittedly perl itself is faster than python/ruby in a number of areas,
but not in the areas Catalyst's dispatcher uses.)
It solves the problem that the benchmark in question is a poor
representation of Catalyst's performance.
Rather than make an exhaustive reply to your response I'll attempt to
put this to bed by merely stating that I think providing the Intarweb
with a 'better' way to measure Catalyst's pefromance is more
constructive than dismissing the way that results that were proffered.
--
Cory 'G' Watson
http://www.onemogin.com
_______________________________________________
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/
