On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Jamie Lawrence wrote: > H::T is much more programmer-centric. In a lot of contexts, that makes > sense. Informally (as in, I haven't done a systematic comparison), it is > also faster than Mason. Mason isn't slow, but if you need every last > gram of performance, well, you probably shouldn't be using a general > framework anyway. > > And yes, they're all RAM-intensive. I don't actually care that much - > RAM is cheap for general purpose servers.
Actually, H::T is almost certainly _much_ faster and less RAM-intensive than Mason, at least when you measure the time it takes to serve a single page/component. OTOH, if you were to try to replicate some of Mason's more powerful features with H::T, like autohandlers, inheritance, etc., then I'm sure that'd bring H::T's speed down to Mason's level ;) In other words, you generally get what you pay for. The most powerful and flexible systems are generally slower and more RAM-hungry. One exception to this might be Embperl, which has large chunks written in C. In that case, the cost is paid for in development time. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
