Well Thomas, I see that they used PHP in that test which means they're
using the beloved Apache which I think you have bashed earlier for its
forkedness etc, this leads me to believe that it should be comparable
with the PicoServer since they both fork and so on, correct or no?

You think Apache is faster than the PicoServer despite all its
bloatedness, maybe through the fact that it's compiled?


On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Tomas Hlavaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>> Anyone care to explain why PicoLisp only got second place? :-)
> if they measured "The way to do it", picoLisp would be 1st:-D
> I would speculate: one limiting factor might be the forking http
> server (it should be simple to test how many requests per second I can
> fire at it and compare it to the competition results to get a rough
> idea) but it is pure speculation as I know almost nothing about that
> competition.
> Cheers,
> Tomas
> --

Reply via email to