I switched from HT to TT some time ago. TT is much easier to be extended,
and tweaked. It's much easier to add your own tags or plugins.
And caching works out of the box even with CGI - compilation of templates
into perl code that is then just evaluated. And under persistent enviroment
it should
I have about a 5 page site. I have it going in TT since that is what I
normally use. I got to thinking about whether HT was faster since it is
just a templating system.
Has anyone ever done a comparison?
Robert
-
Web
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 10:04, Robert Hicks wrote:
I have about a 5 page site. I have it going in TT since that is what I
normally use. I got to thinking about whether HT was faster since it is
just a templating system.
Has anyone ever done a comparison?
I haven't done a comparison, but I
Hi Robert
I have about a 5 page site. I have it going in TT since that is what I
normally use. I got to thinking about whether HT was faster since it is
just a templating system.
Well, TT is very clever, and /very/ complex, so it'd usually be slower.
OTOH, on each invocation of your CGI
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron Savage wrote:
OTOH, on each invocation of your CGI script, you're probable only calling
HT or TT once to render one page, right? Perhaps best to just not worry
about it :-).
All too true. But, if you decide to worry about it anyway be sure to
try HTML::Template::JIT!
On Jan 30, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
It's a pretty rare application that actually has templating as
a significant bottleneck.
One of the reasons I like Conway's suggestion on p. 464 of Perl Best
Practices, Don't optimize applications -- profile them. Templates
are an easy target
