For some reason it seems to be faster. I don't have objective data wrt the old one, but I improved the quality of the code as a side effect of improving the structure. I used ab and httperf as well as the Rails logs to see how it's doing, and it's really quite quick.
Steve On Feb 9, 2007, at 6:31 AM, kleinman wrote: > > And indication of performance differences, (-5%? , same?, better ?). > I would be interested to know cause I'm starting the conversion > myself for our stuff. > > Haml is really clean, thanks hampton - Martin > > On Feb 7, 5:25 pm, "s.ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Brain cramp! Brain cramp! >> >> http://calicowebdev.com >> >> On Feb 7, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Hampton wrote: >> >> >> >>> Linky! >> >>> Linky! >> >>> On 2/7/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> I must confess that I never get around to my own web site, and it's >>>> been gnawing at me. Over the weekend, I redesigned it using Haml >>>> and >>>> Sass for most everything. There is still some retrograde rhtml in a >>>> few places, but the outward-facing stuff is all Haml and the only >>>> stylesheets are Sass-generated. >> >>>> I'm totally sold on Haml and Sass! >> >>>> Steve > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
