Maybe a different question is: How did Rails get so small? Anyhow, Camping is cool in a Nitro-like kind of way, but I have muscle-memory with Rails and can spare a little extra memory.
--s On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Hampton wrote: > > That's extremely interesting.... how could Camping get so big? Is it > because its loading AR? > > -hampton. > > On 8/9/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Well... >> >> I tried starting up a small Camping app under Mongrel on my MBP and >> got a memory footprint of 44,116 (according to ps). I then created a >> simple Rails app with Haml, which specifically does not load >> ActiveRecord, ActionMailer, or ActionWebService. The memory footprint >> was 27,372. Obviously, these would change as more requests were >> served. >> >> This is a pretty ad-hoc measurement, but it doesn't look like using a >> stripped out version of Rails is so bad after all... and I get to use >> Haml :) >> >> --s >> >> On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Hampton wrote: >> >>> >>> No... but I do know that Haml works with Merb. >>> >>> -h. >>> >>> On 8/8/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Not to add insult to Why's injury, but I'm not a Markaby fan. >>>> But... >>>> there are some cases where Rails is just too big a hammer. Has >>>> anyone >>>> tried integrating Haml with Why's Camping (Micro)Framework? >>>> >>>> --s >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
