Just to reiterate - the difference in templating time is very likely
negligible when you factor in your application logic.
ie:
on my tests a HTML::Template file interpolated in .00x, while a
HTML::Template::JIT interpolated in .000y
but my application logic takes .025 to work
.25x vs .250y is not a large difference -- and compared with the ease
in writing and bugfixing templates on some of the slower
implementations, it just became a much better decision to ignore
templating speed
that said, i chose Petal because TAL is (*#&$ great and supported under
many languages -- for example, if a stats reporting page is running too
slow, I can use the same template and just have apache proxypass that
url to a TwistedPython daemon that crunches numbers way faster than
perl can.
It's REALLY easy to get caught up in creating the most efficient
templating system. I fall into that trap at least 2x a year.
Just remember that the templating is only a fraction of your
application, and is likely to be the fastest part of your application
by a significant amount.
It's good to have a friend who you believe is a better coder than you
and occasionally ask him to belittle you on your every idea to try and
keep you in check.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
That's the trade-off: Compiled drops some of the H::T features, which
may be a problem if you are trying to use existing templates with it.
JIT is pretty true to the H::T feature set, and that may be part of
what
slows it down. It's still many times faster than H::T though.
