Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application::Light 0.1

[Brett Sanger <suppressed>]

> > While I haven't benchmarked anything, I suspect compiled TT templates
> > are on par with compiled H::T templates. (so long as you aren't doing
> > Bad Things in your templates).
> 
> I suspect your suspicion is wrong.  ;)  I've done the benchmarks, and
> HTML::Template is well ahead of the pack.  HTML::Template::JIT is around 4
> times faster than that, and it even wins against PHP.

Okay, now you've got me curious.  I've never delved into the internals,
so correct me if any of my assumptions are wrong:

1) Both H::T and TT compile a template into perl code, and cache this
perl code to disk.
2) Both will cache code to memory, given the chance.

If true, what is it that makes one perform better than the other,
assuming simple templates (variable substitution, loops, conditionals)?
At that point shouldn't they end up as near-identical perl code?

> Every so often a set of benchmarks get posted to the mod_perl
> mailing-list.  You should be able to find them in the archives if you're
> interested.

Not really, since they both perform just fine :)  I'm just trying to
increase my understanding of how they work now.

-- 
SwiftOne
suppressed

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed