Olivier Favre-Simon wrote:
BTW do you have benchmark results, to compare Stan against say Kid or
Cheetah ?
I have no benchmarks nor really any interest in generating any (and
given the wildly different way that Stan works from traditional template
systems, it's pretty much apples to oranges anyway; technically Stan
isn't a template language, although it makes a great one). Stan is
quite fast and I'm certain it compares favorably against the others.
Kid is excellent for complex or document-structure-aware pages (py:match
and alike) but often overkill for simple templates. I would happily use
TurboStan from now for less complex templates if the rendering speed is
really here (which I suspect because the template is a python DOM by itself)
I don't think Stan is only appropriate for simple things. In fact, I
think complex things is where it *really* shines because it's able to so
easily push the complexity back into the controller (where it usually
belongs) or even express concepts in pure Python without a lot of
syntactical compromises. I'm going to get some better examples in the
tarball to demonstrate a few of the cool things that can be done to
reduce complexity using Stan. Speaking for myself, I don't plan to
write another line of XML-based markup again ;-)
And yes, caching would be great _with_docs_ I've always been reluctant
to use caching with Cheetah because when I started with it the docs were
sparse, and now I can't detach from my bad habits :-/
Yes, docs is something I need to address with TurboStan. There's
already docs on Stan, but they aren't always easily found, up-to-date
nor absolutely clear to someone not familiar with the Nevow way of doing
things. Also I've added a couple features that need some more docs.
If/when I do the caching, I'll make sure it's covered.
Cliff
