Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>
> And a partridge in a pear tree.... :) Sorry... it's just stupid xmas carols.
>
You've got the spirit. :)
> Anyway, if you are splitting out the DB side for later then why not do the
> same for language features and template features? Here they are both rolled
> into one test it seems.
>
I tried to include language features that were relevant to
a template, which is definately additions and then variable
substitutions.
The rand() is only in there to prevent a language compiler
from rendering the whole thing static if it were able to
guess that all of the variables would be knowable by
unwinding the for loops. A regular template, building
HTML from a database, would not be something a compiler
could optimize in such a fashion.
> I don't think all applications or handlers actually use templates at all.
> Although I guess it's fair to say that languages like PHP are forced to use
> templates.
>
Yes, I'm not sure its even relevant to construct the equivalent
mod_perl handler & registry tests for this because it is a
template benchmark.
> Also I suspect the template features (which seem like a lot of overhead)
> will override any difference in the adds and randomizing speed.
We'll soon see! Did you have an opinion on floats or not?
You seem to have a good feel for these environments.
-- Josh
