3 ms·
I've actually been quite impressed with C# and .net as well, I can't always afford to use it, but it wasn't at all unpleasant to develop an app in. The thing i
by huntedsnark 13y ago
I've actually been quite impressed with C# and .net as well, I can't always afford to use it, but it wasn't at all unpleasant to develop an app in.
The thing is, by the criteria and benchmarks the author of this post is using, asp.net MVC would be relegated to the dust bin for the same reason Rails was; it's at the bottom of his performance graph.
- facorreia 13y agoI'm interested on data about that. Can you share what you have? I've been able to find these datapoints[1] and they show ASP.NET MVC to be the fastest full-stack web framework they tested on Windows. [1] http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r6&hw=winec2&test=db http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r6&hw=wi...
- huntedsnark 13y agoI may be reading it wrong, but in the benchmarks the author linked to showing database-access responses per second on EC2 Rails was getting ~700 and .net MVC getting a max of 1400 with a min of 400. That seems about equivalent given the best .net MVC version is using MongoDB for storage and Rails is using MySQL. Would be nice to see .net MVC with SQL Server or Rails with Mongoid.