web2py source is here: https://bitbucket.org/akorn/helloworld/src/145cbdf4f995/web2py make file is here: https://bitbucket.org/akorn/helloworld/src/145cbdf4f995/Makefile
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:02:40 AM UTC-4, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > > I agree we should try reproduce those benchmarks becomes something is > clearly very wrong. > I cannot find the code used for those benchmarks, so I added a comment > asking for it. > > > On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 07:59:13 UTC-5, Jose C wrote: >> >> Hi Massimo, >> >> I too agree that benchmarks, like statistics, can be very deceptive. >> >> The point is comparing just 2 of the frameworks that I'm personally >> interested in (and I would have imagined had similar startup overheads), >> i.e. web2py and django, you see web2py getting 686 requests compared to >> django's 15,346! That's a massive difference and like Michele's comment, I >> wonder if there is something that can be learnt from this and some >> optimization performed that might help with future versions? The numbers >> certainly look bad for any new person going through the process of choosing >> a framework to start with. >> >> On the memory leak issue, the author says he hit it running the simple >> "hello world" script test. I imagine he's not creating a class with a self >> reference as you mentioned for his simple test. >> >> Perhaps one of the devs could try simulate the test (the author seems >> that have released all the test code and setup scripts) and see whether the >> memory leak issue is indeed present. >> >> P.S. I do realize that even django doesn't have sessions enabled by >> default and wouldn't be surprised if that factor alone accounts for the >> difference. A person selecting a framework up front won't know that >> though. Perhaps Massimo should point it out in the author's blog comments, >> specifically all the setup work being done by web2py to make the framework >> real-world usable. >> > --
