We have done a comparison between Mason and Template Toolkit (both 1.x and
2.0). We ran several tests comparing cached and uncached components.
For the tt tests, we wrote our own caching code against mysql as well as
BerkeleyDB.
What we discovered was that Mason is faster than tt 1.0 both cached and
uncached. The big win is when moving to tt 2.0 as it is much faster. I
also prefer the tt style of doing things since it is so flexible. We are
going with the mysql cache - in our tests it was faster, but I know others
who said BDB blew mysql away - it also fit our network architecture well.
For what it's worth...
Craig
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
> Andy Wardley wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 8, 1:56pm, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > > Not quite. The current version uses its own system of opcodes (!) which
> > > are implemented as closures. Compiling to perl code gives much better
> > > performance, which is why Andy is changing this.
> >
> > Yep, Perrin's right. Version 1 compiled templates to tree form. Items
> > in the tree were scalars (plain text) or references to directive objects
> > which performed some processing (like INCLUDE another template, and so
> > on).
> >
> > This is actually pretty efficient when you have a limited directive set,
> > but doesn't scale very well. For version 1.00 I was more concerned
> > about getting it functioning correctly than running fast (it was already
> > an order of magnitude or two faster than Text::MetaText, the predecessor,
> > so I was happy). Also it was much easier to develop and evolve the toolkit
> > with the tree-form architecture than when compiling to Perl, so it had some
> > hidden benefit.
> I was wondering if anyone had done comparisions between some of the
> major templating engines. I'm thinking specifically of Template Toolkit,
> Mason, HTML::Template, and EmbPerl. I currently use HTML::Template, and
> am happy with it. But I am always open to suggestions.
>
> I really like the fact that templates can be compiled to perl code &
> cached. Any others besides Mason & EmbPerl (and TT in the near future)?
>
>
>
