First of all that is not a apples to apples comparison. For example some of those frameworks do not support sessions out of the box. Web2py has many features always enabled by default and the other frameworks are more bare-bone.
Anyway, on a simple hello world request, without database and without template, web2py is slower then Flask and Bottle because they do nothing beyond serving the request. web2py does more by preparing an environment, creating the session, parsing cookies, parsing the accept language, looks for the closer internationalization file and pluralization rules, validates the request. copies the input stream to temp file, an more. In a real production environment they are all dominated by template rendering and database connections. The times are very close because db-io always dominates over everything else. It is like saying that from 0 to 10mph a moped is better than a car. Of course it it, it weight less. But from 0 to 100mph the car is better because has a bigger engine. The moped does not even reach 100mph. Mind I am not saying web2py is more bloated. It is smaller. I am saying this is not a apple to apple comparison. Web2py 2.0.x has lots of changes that make it faster. The memory leak issue is an accusation that has been floating around. The creator of another framework has pointed out that in web2py is you create a class with a self reference and a __del__ method it will create a memory leak. True but: 1) we do not do it, 2) we tell users not to do it; 3) this is a python problem, not a web2py problem. In every web framework a class with a self reference and a __del__ method will cause a memory leak. Massimo On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 07:01:55 UTC-5, Jose C wrote: > > Just stumbled across this benchmark: > > http://mindref.blogspot.pt/2012/09/python-fastest-web-framework.html > > on the python group discussion: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.lang.python/yu1_BQZsPPc > > The author also notes a memory leak problem with web2py but no specifics > that I could see. > > Thoughts? > > --
