>This is why I disagree with your conjecture that because Django is >slower than another framework, therefore Django is slow. That is not >what is shown, only that the other frameworks do certain things > faster.
I think we have the same standpoint of view here. May be it is faster somewhere else... but where? If it is slower here and there... it is probaly just slow, isn't it? May be the word 'slow' is not correct... if the framework does more for me in URL dispatch I want to know what that more means... I know it can do reverse url but that feature is not used in url dispatch. >Open source is wonderful, because you are allowed the choice of >framework. You can choose full featured, and accept that those >features will cost time, or you can choose lightweight, and not use >those features. There is no magical mid-way point where you get all >the features and all the speed. Agreed. We are free to talk about this and that is good. It would be better if someone also listen. If the difference between lightweight and full featured impacts performance that much I want to see which features cause that. Let itemize the list. Honesty I tried... but just can not related them to the facts faced. ________________________________ From: Tom Evans <tevans...@googlemail.com> To: Moonlight <moonlight_13_...@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:46 PM Subject: Re: URL dispatcher slow? On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Moonlight <moonlight_13_...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> So, the benchmarks are interesting. They tell us which stacks are >> fully featured, and which stacks are very lightweight. Apart from >> that, they don't tell us much at all - is Django's template engine >> slow, or is it about right for the work it does? This benchmark >> doesn't tell us that, it only says it is slower than a bare bones >> template engine, which is unsurprising, and shouldn't be a cause for >> concern. > > > It is sort of no sense. Django is fully featured and we do not care... some > other are fast because they are lightweight... tell me which 'full featured' > feature prevents it from become better. I guess for the #1 framework it is > important to be leader... hmm... not sure what you mean by 'right for the > work it does'... who needs a template that doesn't do what you need? You are absolutely right - personally, I do not care one iota how fast Django routes requests. I know that it does it fast enough, and that improving the speed of that tiny subsection of code is not going to improve the performance of my web application. This part of code makes up a disproportionally small part of the request cycle, even if it was twice as fast, the overall improvement would be negligible. This is why I disagree with your conjecture that because Django is slower than another framework, therefore Django is slow. That is not what is shown, only that the other frameworks do certain things faster. >From your previous post, talking about urlresolver: > I definitely would appreciate if someone from core team I guess or in the > community finally have a look there Django's url resolver _is_ fast. It does a lot more work than the other frameworks under test, which is why it is subjectively slower than them in that test, but that is not relevant. It could be made faster, if it stopped doing the useful features that we rely on to build our projects. Open source is wonderful, because you are allowed the choice of framework. You can choose full featured, and accept that those features will cost time, or you can choose lightweight, and not use those features. There is no magical mid-way point where you get all the features and all the speed. Cheers Tom -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
