3 ms·

"performance graphs" I haven't personally tested RoR but from a quick recall of some tests I've seen for RoR on the Web, I think our performs several times fas

by volida 18y ago

"performance graphs" I haven't personally tested RoR but from a quick recall of some tests I've seen for RoR on the Web, I think our performs several times faster, and there is always room for optimization. The point isn't if you can or not build something faster than XYZ but rather showcase that you did.

SwellJoe 18y ago
My point was that performance is so far down the list of things I would care about in a framework that anyone who cares enough to put it as one of a very few limited options probably is not thinking about the problem domain in the same way I am. My surprise is that people agree with you that if you're listing a handful of possibilities, performance over other frameworks is a consideration. I'm just finding the whole thing bizarre, that's all. Besides that, performance of widely varying frameworks written in widely varying languages usually can't be compared in meaningful ways. It's either a micro-benchmark of a few very specific test cases (and thus, not all that useful for predicting real world performance), or it is a "real world" example, but implemented with possibly wildly divergent quality and attention to detail--if you are a Java master and you build a test app, and then do a 1-to-1 port to Python, nobody would be surprised that the Java app outperforms the Python one. Anyway, my point is that I simply don't understand how performance could be a meaningful piece of information in this context or how being "fast" could possibly make me want to use the framework over existing frameworks. Writing it in C would be "fast"...but I wouldn't use it.
- volida 18y ago
  Actually I would expect that people who already use RoR for example wouldn't really have performance a priority. People using Java I think would be more sensitive to performance issues. I agree that speed is not the top in the list for a framework, but having it in mind is important.

by volida 18y ago

SwellJoe 18y ago

My point was that performance is so far down the list of things I would care about in a framework that anyone who cares enough to put it as one of a very few limited options probably is not thinking about the problem domain in the same way I am. My surprise is that people agree with you that if you're listing a handful of possibilities, performance over other frameworks is a consideration. I'm just finding the whole thing bizarre, that's all. Besides that, performance of widely varying frameworks written in widely varying languages usually can't be compared in meaningful ways. It's either a micro-benchmark of a few very specific test cases (and thus, not all that useful for predicting real world performance), or it is a "real world" example, but implemented with possibly wildly divergent quality and attention to detail--if you are a Java master and you build a test app, and then do a 1-to-1 port to Python, nobody would be surprised that the Java app outperforms the Python one. Anyway, my point is that I simply don't understand how performance could be a meaningful piece of information in this context or how being "fast" could possibly make me want to use the framework over existing frameworks. Writing it in C would be "fast"...but I wouldn't use it.

volida 18y ago
Actually I would expect that people who already use RoR for example wouldn't really have performance a priority. People using Java I think would be more sensitive to performance issues. I agree that speed is not the top in the list for a framework, but having it in mind is important.