[Catalyst] Catalyst vs Rails vs Django Cook off

Carl Franks fireartist at gmail.com
Thu Nov 16 10:29:30 GMT 2006


On 16/11/06, catalyst.20.chsg at spamgourmet.com
<catalyst.20.chsg at spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> I really don't want to start a bashing session, but I have some
> concerns that those much more knowledgeable than me should hopefully
> be able to clarify.
>
> Recently, I saw this article via Catalyst Planet: http://
> letsgetdugg.com/feed/view/Catalyst_vs_Rails_vs_Django_Cook_off
>
> Essentially, according to his test, which doesn't take into account
> ORM performance, Rails & Django knock the socks of Catalyst.
>
> In victori's remarks, he calls for a change in Catalyst and points to
> the other advantages to to this framework, mostly related to ease of
> coding.  While the whole reason I came to Catalyst is because I'm
> comfortable with Perl and don't want to learn Ruby, I'm worried that
> my Catalyst application won't perform as well when/if my app usage
> becomes very significant.  Should I be concerned?
>
> Again, I'm not interesting in hearing about how Rails/Ruby/Django/
> Python sucks, but in facts about real performance of Catalyst.

The first thing I noticed was that the content length of the document
served by catalyst was longer than that served by rails.
He doesn't seem to have tried very hard to test "apples for apples" (his words)

Also see the very good comment by "JayK" as to why it's not a very
good real-world test at all.
http://letsgetdugg.com/view/Catalyst_vs_Rails_vs_Django_Cook_off

I'm not saying Catalyst's performance couldn't be improved, or that
it's not slower than Rails - just that a bad benchmark is worthless.

Carl



More information about the Catalyst mailing list