3 ms·
It's worse than that. He links to a set of benchmarks to demonstrate that rails is slow without even considering the caching utilities that rails provides. Wh
by everettForth 13y ago
It's worse than that. He links to a set of benchmarks to demonstrate that rails is slow without even considering the caching utilities that rails provides.
Who bases their sole criterion for a web framework on speed, and then ignores the baked-in caching functionality that a framework provides?
- bhauer 13y agoTo be clear, the particular test cited is expressly designed to exercise the framework and its ORM+database connectivity. None of our present test types permit the use of a reverse proxy cache because we are specifically interested in measuring the performance of the frameworks/platforms and not the performance of reverse proxy software; you can find such tests elsewhere. Further, reverse proxies are only suitable for a subset of real-world applications where it is acceptable to cache output for consumption by a wide audience. In other words, Rails wasn't unique in being tested without a preferred reverse proxy. Every single framework on that list was tested without a reverse proxy. A future test type [1] will exercise back-end caching (e.g., memcached in the case of Rails), but we are not planning to ever include reverse proxies (of any form) in the project. [1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/374 https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/37...