Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
On 17 Jan 2007, at 18:24, Sébastien Wagener wrote: What about profiling real world applications where the Catalyst seems to be the bottleneck? On my production server, database requests are usually quite fast, so most of the time is spent in perl code, and here are the first lines of a dprofpp -r on my local 2.8 Ghz Laptop (production database, Algorithm::C3 0.06, mod_perl deployment, as I do not want to use FastCGI and dprofpp -F), for a repeated lost-password/login/change password/logout cycle (totally about 1000 requests): That happens with lots of plugins; suggest trying Catalyst::Plugin::C3 to remove that overhead (note that it's not 100% bug free but the performance increase is worth a go) -- Matt S Trout, Technical Director, Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Offering custom development, consultancy and support contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for details. + Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix- class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ + ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Jay K [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-17 18:20]: I agree 100% on this... if we are judging Catalyst, et al, as simple dispatchers, then we should consider apache+cgi in the discussion as well - as apache is obviously one of the most venerable and widely deployed dispatchers out there. Eh? Apache doesn’t dispatch anything unless maybe you’re talking about mod_perl, and CGI.pm certainly doesn’t dispatch anything. Not in the web framework sense of dispatch anwyay, which was born precisely out of the desire to avoid having to write an ad-hoc dispatcher in every CGI script. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Eh? Apache doesn’t dispatch anything unless maybe you’re talking
about mod_perl
If that's true, then GETting http://mysite.com/foo/bar/baz.html would
get a file named $DOCROOT/foo\/bar\/baz.html. Considering that's never
the case (you can't have / in UNIX filenames, only paths), I would say
Apache is a dispatcher. Add mod_alias and mod_rewrite into the mix, and
Apache is definitely a URL dispatcher.
--
package JAPH;use Catalyst qw/-Debug/;($;=JAPH)-config(name = do {
$,.=reverse qw[Jonathan tsu rehton lre rekca Rockway][$_].[split //,
;$;]-[$_].q; ;for 1..4;$,=~s;^.;;;$,});$;-setup;
___
List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-18 17:55]: A. Pagaltzis wrote: Eh? Apache doesn’t dispatch anything unless maybe you’re talking about mod_perl If that's true, then GETting http://mysite.com/foo/bar/baz.html would get a file named $DOCROOT/foo\/bar\/baz.html. Considering that's never the case (you can't have / in UNIX filenames, only paths), I would say Apache is a dispatcher. Add mod_alias and mod_rewrite into the mix, and Apache is definitely a URL dispatcher. Hmm, you’re right. I guess I’ll start writing my apps as lots of little CGI scripts so that I can use the Apache dispatching. No wait, this isn’t 1992 anymore. (Except for many PHP people who’re still stuck there.) Last I checked, Apache’s URI translation won’t route requests to particular methods within an app that’s launched from a single script, so no, Apache is not a dispatcher in the sense that Catalyst or RoR is. You can of course load your app *into* the webserver with mod_perl, in which case you can configure Apache to dispatch the URI to a particular method in your app; but I mentioned that as an exception in the previous mail anyway. I assumed that would be enough of a hint, but I guess I expected too much. Are we done splitting this hair now or do you need more clarification? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-18 19:40]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Are we done splitting this hair now or do you need more
clarification?
Depends on what you mean by methods:
foo.pl:
use MyApp;
print MyApp-foo($ENV{QUERY_STRING});
bar.pl:
use MyApp;
print MyApp-bar($ENV{QUERY_STRING});
I don't think this is a good idea, but you can do it if you want to.
can and good idea is the hair that I'm splitting.
Yes, sure, as I already said in my previous mail [1], you can
abuse Apache’s URI-to-filesystem mapper as a dispatcher with
the right contortions as long as your URI structure is static.
(No wait, your next mail will point out that you can create
directories and generate scripts from a template; so the URI
structure needn’t be static.) Noone in their right mind is going
to want to in practice, of course. So when the subject was what
dispatchers should be benchmarked, why point it out? Is anyone
going to care?
I guess it’s me who shouldn’t have. Sorry. I should know better.
[1] Does anyone notice a pattern here?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
___
List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Jay K [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-18 20:10]: Point being that frameworks provide more than choosing what to do, Care to actually mention a few examples? if you stop the comparison at that point, then you might as well include every web server in your comparison. As long as the web server provides a way to dispatch to a piece of my own code, then yes, absolutely. Apache + mod_perl is a reasonable benchmark candidate, f.ex. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
A. Pagaltzis said:
* Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-16 15:55]:
That's a rather odd comparison. I'd say benchmarking mapping
of URLs to methods isn't a good test of Catalyst like
benchmarking DBI isn't a good test of DBIx-Class.
I agree that Perrinâs analogy was a bit odd, but yours is even
odder.
You are of course free to think so, but without some Why's I'm hardly able
to argue about it. But I always wanted to be psychic, so I'll try it
anyway :)
When I request a resource from a Catalyst application, two things are
executed: The framework logic, and my application logic. But this is not a
first the one, then the other execution. During the request, the
framework calls my application logic to get some response together, and my
application logic uses the framework logic in a convenient way. The
dispatching (read: The decisio on what part of my application logic to
execute) is a rather small part.
--
# Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek
# Perl 5/Catalyst Developer in Hamburg, Germany
{ EMail = ' [EMAIL PROTECTED] ', Web = ' http://474.at ' }
___
List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
I agree 100% on this... if we are judging Catalyst, et al, as simple dispatchers, then we should consider apache+cgi in the discussion as well - as apache is obviously one of the most venerable and widely deployed dispatchers out there. A framework is much more than that. In my experience, the costs in time and money involved in building and maintaining the code for an app outweigh the cost of deploying it by huge margins. Furthermore, by the time you are experiencing enough traffic to be analyzing the performance at this granular a level, there are much better ways to improve your responses per second that cost much less in terms of time and money. These days, for less than the cost of a week of work, you can double your serving capacity easily - and because of the 'fringe benefits' of using Catalyst this is usually simply a matter of swapping out session and caching plugins (if you even use them) to the more cross- server compatible modules. If you are using a frontend cache like squid, you can do even more cost-for-performance-wise. Personally, I use Catalyst because it takes care of a lot of details I would rather not worry about. When I am free of worrying about all those details, I can focus on building JUST my application logic. This means that my application logic tends to be more solid, because I am not tracking a ton of specifics outside of my app. Because I'm not constantly crossing the line between my app and base functionality (responding to HTTP, getting the correct bit of code executed based on the request, etc.), I am not chasing bugs related to that line. I can rely on the fact that it will always happen in a particular way and if I have a bug, it's more than likely in my application, so I can focus there. That is the power of a Framework any 'benchmark' that doesn't take those things into account is so much fluff and of no use to me. JayK On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Marcello Romani wrote: David Morel ha scritto: Le 15 janv. 07 à 21:51, Christopher Hicks a écrit : On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Daniel McBrearty wrote: I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the mix Does that include dynamic content caching wizardry ? It is meaningless if you don't take into account real-life scenarios like reverse proxy cache invalidation policies (and tricks). This is just to say that all this perf talk is meaningless : sometimes the power you get from a well thought out framework allows you to do things that are close to magick, speed-wise among others. Comparing simple setups is ridiculous IMHO. David Morel If a framework makes development easier because it's more elegant, easy to use, or whatever, then you may have more time to think about setting up a more efficient deployment architecture (i.e. the thinks mentioned above). Therefore it seems to me that ease of developement might be more important to the overall app performance than the raw speed in simple test cases. Just my 2 (euro)cents. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/ catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ -- Marcello Romani Responsabile IT Ottotecnica s.r.l. http://www.ottotecnica.com ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/ catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ --- America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -- Abraham Lincoln ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek wrote: When I request a resource from a Catalyst application, two things are executed: The framework logic, and my application logic. But this is not a first the one, then the other execution. During the request, the framework calls my application logic to get some response together, and my application logic uses the framework logic in a convenient way. The dispatching (read: The decisio on what part of my application logic to execute) is a rather small part. That was my point actually: the dispatching (plus the abstraction layer for accessing things like the query string from the web environment) is nearly all of it, in terms of performance. A couple of calls to $c-forward() and $c-stash() are negligible, and all the rest is either your code or some non-Catalyst CPAN module. Regarding the DBI analogy, the thinking is pretty simple: - DBI is big, much bigger than Catalyst. - DBI has tons of functionality in it, like a profiler, database schema introspection, and a proxy system. - If someone made a benchmark comparing DBI to JDBC based on query speed, no one would complain that they didn't test the speed of the other features, even though you might use them. Query speed is the most relevant thing to benchmark for DBI, just like mapping URLs to methods is the most relevant thing to benchmark for Catalyst. The benchmark still sucks though, even as a dispatcher test. He gave it the easiest possible URL. - Perrin ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 19:24 +0100, Sébastien Wagener wrote: On my production server, database requests are usually quite fast, so most of the time is spent in perl code, and here are the first lines of a dprofpp -r on my local 2.8 Ghz Laptop (production database, Algorithm::C3 0.06, mod_perl deployment, as I do not want to use FastCGI and dprofpp -F), for a repeated lost-password/login/change password/logout cycle (totally about 1000 requests) One tip for profiling with mod_perl: If you preload your modules in httpd.conf (or a startup.pl called from it), make sure you initialize the debugger before you load them or else they will not show up in DProf output. For example, put this before any PerlModule or PerlRequire statements: Perl require Apache::DB; Apache::DB-init; /Perl - Perrin ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
Like what? And what about those other design options is benchmarkable? 1. the language. For instance, a key factor against RoR for me was the fact that Ruby doesn't know where its going w.r.t. unicode. Perl has mature support for that. There are multiple other reasons why people like/dislike various langauges, and a lot of it, if we are honest, is taste, or factors specific to that project. 2. the library support in the language. Ditto. 3. as a subset of 2, templating systems, ORM's ... It may be that the differences between these things, platform to platform, are insignificant compared to other factors. OK. But if I was setting out to do this exercise (which I'm not, right now ...) I would make some basic measurements anyhow, at least as a start point. snip Because as long as the framework is not improbably slow, its contribution to an app's performance characteristics will just be noise in any realworld scenario. /snip So what are the key factors that influence performance? Why not design a benchmark such that it can show up those differences? I'm not pretending to know in advance what makes the difference. I don't. I just don't think that saying there's no point measuring it ... and expecting the world to just believe is a very realistic combination. Hence the question I was trying to ask in the other thread - what DOES make a realistic benchmark? snip Does that include dynamic content caching wizardry ? It is meaningless if you don't take into account real-life scenarios like reverse proxy cache invalidation policies (and tricks). This is just to say that all this perf talk is meaningless : sometimes the power you get from a well thought out framework allows you to do things that are close to magick, speed-wise among others. Comparing simple setups is ridiculous IMHO. /snip Fair enough. So why not try to design a benchmark in such a way that those techniques can be exploited? What is the simplest set of tests that has some meaning for you? -- Daniel McBrearty email : danielmcbrearty at gmail.com www.engoi.com : the multi - language vocab trainer BTW : 0873928131 ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
Le 16 janv. 07 à 11:27, Daniel McBrearty a écrit : Fair enough. So why not try to design a benchmark in such a way that those techniques can be exploited? What is the simplest set of tests that has some meaning for you? I don't know :) I'm thinking benchmarking simple things don't work. Pushing this a bit further, I realized I didn't really care about speed as long as the apps are resonably fast. I don't really care if a framework gives me 150 hits/s and another one 130. Maybe what matters in the end is the resources you have to allocate (financially speaking, which implies how many servers, elcetricity, developer time, etc) to a given project. This implies observing the projects on the long term, and encompasses such concerns as application lifecycle, security (how much did the downtime to plug that hole cost us ?), extensibility, developer turnover (Bye boss, had enough of your php toys), etc. Don't you think ? I don't know of anyone wishing to write the same app twice, or a client willing to pay two teams of developers to produce the same app in two different languages, so I guess the comparison cannot be done :) Am I a would-be suit -or moron, pick one ? Of course it would be nice to say : Catalyst is the best AND fastest framework there is. But IMHO it's not that important (considering establishing such a fact is nearly impossible). I'm pretty satisfied with the fact that I can use the whole of CPAN at great speed, and I think that matters more. David Morel [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- OpenPGP pubkey : http://www.amakuru.net/dmorel.asc ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Carl Johnstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-15 13:15]: So surely you pick the framework that most helps you get things done rather than the one that works fastest? Yes and no. Depends on what you’re doing. But in the case of Catalyst, you’ll probably get much more speed out of switching to another templating engine and/or ORM than out of switching the framework, whose total performance impact is negligible. So I don’t know what the point of benchmarking frameworks against each other is, particularly for such an unrepresentative case. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off (Marlon Bailey)
Whereas features are extremely important in any framework used, speed is still an important thing when you're considering how much hardware to purchase and how you'll be deploying based on your expected load(and god forbid you turned into the next myspace, then it really matters). And yes, hardware is cheaper than developer time, but it's still an expense when you put it on a PL statement; SOMEONE needs to pay for it, and it's nice if your software minimizes this within reason. So I'm for a benchmark of all these systems. Why not just do a basic benchmark(user hits main page, creates account, log-ins, and logs out), using the most popular ORM and Templating system for each framework, and see what numbers come back? _Marlon_ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
Le 15 janv. 07 à 21:51, Christopher Hicks a écrit : On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Daniel McBrearty wrote: I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the mix Does that include dynamic content caching wizardry ? It is meaningless if you don't take into account real-life scenarios like reverse proxy cache invalidation policies (and tricks). This is just to say that all this perf talk is meaningless : sometimes the power you get from a well thought out framework allows you to do things that are close to magick, speed-wise among others. Comparing simple setups is ridiculous IMHO. David Morel ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Daniel McBrearty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-15 20:40]: I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be meaningful if it was done well. Not that anyone should choose their framework on the basis of such a benchmark, but it's a factor to throw into the mix. Because as long as the framework is not improbably slow, its contribution to an app’s performance characteristics will just be noise in any realworld scenario. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
On Nov 16, 2006, at 7:44 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]: I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't one create a test that was more fair? Then someone would have a test that shows results that are more 'real' and give potential users more information with which to make a decision. Sorry, come again? If I say “I’m afraid this pasta tastes so awful I just can’t eat it”, would you respond “well at least [the cook] did prepare something! maybe you should stop mouthing off and do it better”? The fact that people with no taste are paying attention to what the cook produces is reason enough to merit a response. The benchmark should be fixed or thoroughly and publicly discredited. Ignoring the cook and the dish he served up is fine for the discriminating individual, but it won't keep the masses from forming ill-informed opinions. For better or worse buzz words like mind share and community matter. Perception often wins out over substance. cheers, Garrett ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]: I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't one create a test that was more fair? Then someone would have a test that shows results that are more 'real' and give potential users more information with which to make a decision. Sorry, come again? If I say “I’m afraid this pasta tastes so awful I just can’t eat it”, would you respond “well at least [the cook] did prepare something! maybe you should stop mouthing off and do it better”? The fact that a benchmark does not measure something interesting stands on its own. There is *no* need for anyone to provide a better benchmark before they can state that a bad one is bad. The onus is on the benchmark writer to show that his measurements are meaningful and useful. It’s called science. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 16:45]: It's a world where PHBs often look at web stats and ask What the hell is this slow a lot more than they ask Why isn't the system flexible. If he decides it’s because the framework is slow and makes you switch, that means two things: 1. He has no idea of programming or benchmarks. 2. He insists on making decisions about things he clearly knows nothing about. No wait, it means three things: 1. He has no idea of programming or benchmarks. 2. He insists on making decisions about things he clearly knows nothing about, instead of deferring to the competence of people he hired for their competence and trusting their judgement. Of course, since he is incompetent in this are, he has no way of knowing how competent his underlings are. A certain Paul Graham has written at length about this problem. 3. You are doomed. Even if you used the best-performing framework ever, he will force other boneheaded decisions on you. Float your resume. * Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 16:50]: And a world where customers don't bitch that your framework is inflexibly, but will bitch if it's slow. No, they will bitch that the *application* is slow. Customers couldn’t give a flying monkey about how you implement it. And the framework is almost assuredly not going to be where you’re wasting all your cycles. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
On 11/16/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]: I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't one create a test that was more fair? Then someone would have a test that shows results that are more 'real' and give potential users more information with which to make a decision. Sorry, come again? If I say I'm afraid this pasta tastes so awful I just can't eat it, would you respond well at least [the cook] did prepare something! maybe you should stop mouthing off and do it better? That depends. Am I part of collection of individuals who's goal is to collaboratively create better pasta or am I someone who paid money for someone to prepare me pasta? I think the answer to that question points out why I bothered to originally respond to this message. I tire of being repeatedly berated for thinking it would be cool for someone to create a benchmark based on the criticisms of those of you that can lend advice. Since I'm not putting my money where my mouth is, I'll take my ball and go home. ;) -- Cory 'G' Watson http://www.onemogin.com ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-17 03:20]: On 11/16/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I say I'm afraid this pasta tastes so awful I just can't eat it, would you respond well at least [the cook] did prepare something! maybe you should stop mouthing off and do it better? That depends. Am I part of collection of individuals who's goal is to collaboratively create better pasta or am I someone who paid money for someone to prepare me pasta? Note that the analogon to the pasta in this case is the benchmark, not Catalyst. I tire of being repeatedly berated for thinking it would be cool for someone to create a benchmark based on the criticisms of those of you that can lend advice. Oh, no doubt that would be cool. Ponies are also cool. ;-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
