On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 00:06 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:17:51AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > > > > magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > > > > > What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML > > > is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) > > > deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. > > > > It's not a fair comparison. It's like saying here's a bucket of water. I > > want you to take it across the road using one of the following methods: > > I wouldn't consider it a truly scientific comparison. The testing method > seems a little odd to me. Nonetheless, the point is makes is clear: PHP > is 70% (more or less) efficient in rendering pages than straight HTML,
Let's be perfectly clear here... plain HTML has no dyanmic functionality. > and the "best" frameworks are only about 20% as efficient as straight > PHP. No, that is WRONG. The study shows that the "best" framworks are about 20% as efficient as straight PHP to output "hello world". Don't confuse yourself. Any large enough application will begin to converge with a framework's speed... ESPECIALLY due to to I/O bottlenecks. > We can argue about the exact numbers, No, I don't care about the exact numbers, I care about a proper analysis. > but the results make clear > that for speed HTML > PHP > frameworks. (And really, can you logically > argue that point?) Yes I can. > From this, you don't draw the conclusion to not use > frameworks or PHP. From this, you now know one of the trade-offs in > using PHP and frameworks. And you get some idea of the magnitude of its > impact. Yes, you get a tradeoff chart between frameworks... but any sufficiently developed applicaiton will itself resemble a framework when all is said and done. > (These guys didn't even bother to test HTML with a bunch of Javascript > or complex CSS in it. Might PHP have been faster?) It doesn't matter. We're talking server processing time here. > Is *coding* faster and more efficient with frameworks? Sure. Does the > code execute as fast? No. Not necessarily true. > If execution speed is your priority, then you > either scrap the framework, resort to a caching solution (which some of > the frameworks already have in place, but which the testers didn't > test), or figure something else out (like C?). If execution speed isn't > your priority, then you might look instead at a framework. You have an extremely narrow point of view. > Anyway, the survey is just a tool which lets you know about one of the > trade-offs in web design. I doubt any other method of testing would skew > the results all that much. It's a flawed tool. A tool that provides wrong or biased data is worse than a tool that provides none at all. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
