I just want to make a quick note about the performance. Pure haml is 2.7 times slower than pure erb. This is a fact. And this isn't due to Haml being slow, just erb being REALLY fast.
However, most of your time "rendering" in a Rails applications is spent with your models/helpers/etc building them as the template is processed. So, your total rendering time doesn't increase by 2.7, just the pure-template part which is a trivial section in the first place. I've found that total page-rendering time only slows by about 2-5% when using Haml in a real Rails application. Haml is much faster than all the things you are doing *in* your template. -hampton. On Mar 22, 4:36 am, "Nex3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, shucks. > > 1. We don't compile to RHTML, we compile straight to HTML. Well, not > straight, there are some steps in between, but those are > implementation details. Performance-wise, because Haml needs to think > about the entire document, rather than just certain sections, it is > slower than ERb (which is the system RHTML uses). On my computer, it > currently benchmarks at about 2.7 times as slow, although the test > pages aren't entirely equivalent (there are a lot of shortcuts taken > in the Haml page that simply can't be done in RHTML). We do keep an > eye out for performance, though, and it has been increasing pretty > steadily. > > 2. Yes, in fact, there is. Haml works just as well as a Ruby module as > it does as a plugin. You can grab the gem by running "gem install > haml", and then use the Haml::Engine class to render stuff (or > Sass::Engine for Sass). Check out the > rdoc,http://haml.hamptoncatlin.com/docs/rdoc, > for a full reference, but the gist is: > > Haml::Engine.new("%h1 Scripted Haml!").render #=> <h1>Scripted Haml! > </h1> > > Hope that was helpful :). > > - Nathan > > On Mar 22, 1:22 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > First off let me say Haml seems very awesome (jsut learned about it) > > and I think the developers are awesome too (shameless compliment). > > It's quite coincidental that I was just thinking about how repetitive > > html and css were and was about to start work on some thing when I > > found this. It's like they read my mind.....creepy. Anyways I had two > > quick questions. > > > 1. How much of a performance hit does it make having to compile to > > rhtml and then render? > > 2. Is there a way you can script it and then precompile it? i.e. write > > in on your machine then compile to html/rhtml/css and then upload? > > Cause I'd really like to use this on my non ruby based web dev stuff. > > > Thanks in advance and keep up the good work, can't wait to see what's > > next. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
