lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

Klaus Ripke wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:16:43PM +0300, Markus Walther wrote:

Klaus Ripke wrote:

Jan notes a nice over 30 fold speedup (4900:150)
compared to doing the same in PHP.

That's wrong. The comparison is about simulating caching _in the
scripting language_ (PHP or Lua would make no difference, I believe), or
doing it _in the webserver_!

Err, no, not really.

<long explanation about why PHP is worse than Lua for (Fast)CGI applications deleted>

I'm sorry, but your original post was this:

So for the record
Jan notes a nice over 30 fold speedup (4900:150)
compared to doing the same in PHP."

You didn't provide the context to understand your speedup claim, so I reacted and also explained things a bit. Fortunately you did provide the URL which anybody on the list can read for him/herself. Here is what Jan says in there about CML:

"CML (Cache Meta Language) wants to solves several problems:

        * dynamic content needs caching to perform
* checking if the content is dirty inside of the application is usually more expensive than sending out the cached data * a dynamic page is usually fragmented and the fragments have different livetimes
        * the different fragements can be cached independently"

The entire document does not make any comparison Lua versus PHP - therefore I am correct to say you're wrong, because you cannot draw such conclusions FROM, and that is what your sentence, quoted above, suggested to the Lua-L readership.

Of course, it is possible to provide independent data on Lua vs PHP such as the one you have cited from your own or others' experience and measurements - and I even found them interesting. But that is an entirely separate thread and a new topic.

Regards, Markus Walther