Re: Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 00:06 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:17:51AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > >    The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of
> > > >    magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315
> > >
> > > What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML
> > > is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter)
> > > deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP.
> > 
> > It's not a fair comparison. It's like saying here's a bucket of water. I
> > want you to take it across the road using one of the following methods:
> 
> I wouldn't consider it a truly scientific comparison. The testing method
> seems a little odd to me. Nonetheless, the point is makes is clear: PHP
> is 70% (more or less) efficient in rendering pages than straight HTML,

Let's be perfectly clear here... plain HTML has no dyanmic
functionality.

> and the "best" frameworks are only about 20% as efficient as straight
> PHP.

No, that is WRONG. The study shows that the "best" framworks are about
20% as efficient as straight PHP to output "hello world". Don't confuse
yourself. Any large enough application will begin to converge with a
framework's speed... ESPECIALLY due to to I/O bottlenecks.

>  We can argue about the exact numbers,

No, I don't care about the exact numbers, I care about a proper
analysis.

>  but the results make clear
> that for speed HTML > PHP > frameworks. (And really, can you logically
> argue that point?)

Yes I can.

>  From this, you don't draw the conclusion to not use
> frameworks or PHP. From this, you now know one of the trade-offs in
> using PHP and frameworks. And you get some idea of the magnitude of its
> impact.

Yes, you get a tradeoff chart between frameworks... but any sufficiently
developed applicaiton will itself resemble a framework when all is said
and done.

> (These guys didn't even bother to test HTML with a bunch of Javascript
> or complex CSS in it. Might PHP have been faster?)

It doesn't matter. We're talking server processing time here.

> Is *coding* faster and more efficient with frameworks? Sure. Does the
> code execute as fast? No.

Not necessarily true.

> If execution speed is your priority, then you
> either scrap the framework, resort to a caching solution (which some of
> the frameworks already have in place, but which the testers didn't
> test), or figure something else out (like C?). If execution speed isn't
> your priority, then you might look instead at a framework.

You have an extremely narrow point of view.

> Anyway, the survey is just a tool which lets you know about one of the
> trade-offs in web design. I doubt any other method of testing would skew
> the results all that much.

It's a flawed tool. A tool that provides wrong or biased data is worse
than a tool that provides none at all.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


[Index of Archives]     [PHP Home]     [Apache Users]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Install]     [PHP Classes]     [Pear]     [Postgresql]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP on Windows]     [PHP Database Programming]     [PHP SOAP]

  Powered by Linux