Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

techempower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 241 posts

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#171

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

irahul wrote: post #158
pfalls wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, because we chose MySQL as the database backend, both Django and Flask are punished for not having a connection pool. We've received requests to do the test using Postgres which does have a connection pool, and we hope to eventually get to that.

What are your using for db access? If you are using SQLAlchemy or Flask-SQLAlchemy, that should automatically do connection pooling.

Flask-SQLAlchemy does not use a pool by default. This can be changed by setting the `SQLALCHEMY_POOL_SIZE` config variable though.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#172

Post by elechi »

rufugee wrote: post #164
wyqueshocec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, the Spring one would take 10x as long to make, which means more developer cost and more feedback reaction time. Certainly not a deal breaker, but a cost/tradeoff one must consider. Edit: clarity.

As someone who recently came back to Java from a 5 year stint with Rails, I can safely say this is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you stick to those tools in the Java ecosystem which meet your requirements, you can be incredibly productive. The problem is that the Java world is full of over-engineered solutions which are really targeted at extremely large enterprise applications surrounded by a commun…

How are you finding Vaadin work out for you? What are you using it for? What version? The 6 series or the new 7 series?

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#173

Post by rufugee »

elechi wrote: post #172
rufugee wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who recently came back to Java from a 5 year stint with Rails, I can safely say this is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you stick to those tools in the Java ecosystem which meet your requirements, you can be incredibly productive. The problem is that the Java world is full of over-engineered solutions which are really targeted at extremely large enterprise applications surrounded by a commun…

How are you finding Vaadin work out for you? What are you using it for? What version? The 6 series or the new 7 series?

So far, so good. It's very different from your typical template-driven approach. We have a decent amount of Swing experience, and developing with Vaadin feels similar (but much easier) than Swing.

If you are developing business-facing applications and not just consumer web sites, as we are, I think Vaadin makes a lot of sense. It might even make sense for consumer sites, but that's not our current target.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#174

Post by rufugee »

rufugee wrote: post #173
elechi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you finding Vaadin work out for you? What are you using it for? What version? The 6 series or the new 7 series?

So far, so good. It's very different from your typical template-driven approach. We have a decent amount of Swing experience, and developing with Vaadin feels similar (but much easier) than Swing. If you are developing business-facing applications and not just consumer web sites, as we are, I think Vaadin makes a lot of sense. It might even make sense for consumer sites, but that's not our current target.

I should also say: putting together a new screen (form or otherwise) in Vaadin is extremely fast. It's the fastest I've ever been able to develop web-based UIs, simply because all I'm forced to think about is Java.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#175

Post by wyqueshocec »

rufugee wrote: post #164
wyqueshocec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, the Spring one would take 10x as long to make, which means more developer cost and more feedback reaction time. Certainly not a deal breaker, but a cost/tradeoff one must consider. Edit: clarity.

As someone who recently came back to Java from a 5 year stint with Rails, I can safely say this is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you stick to those tools in the Java ecosystem which meet your requirements, you can be incredibly productive. The problem is that the Java world is full of over-engineered solutions which are really targeted at extremely large enterprise applications surrounded by a commun…

Rails is not great, IMO.

I use Spring every day as part of my day job, and I agree that a lot of the development time slowness is due to culture/enterprise. But that is a serious problem that can't be readily dismissed.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#176

Post by wyqueshocec »

columbo wrote: post #126
wyqueshocec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, the Spring one would take 10x as long to make, which means more developer cost and more feedback reaction time. Certainly not a deal breaker, but a cost/tradeoff one must consider. Edit: clarity.

Oh sure, there are reasons to use an easier/faster-to-develop language, I believe every developer should know a 'hard-and-fast' language and a 'slow-and-easy' language... and know when to use them. 98% of the websites out there could run on python and I doubt we'd see a big performance difference. However, I really don't think there exists a 10x difference developing in Spring. Hell, I don't think there is a 10x diff…

I chose that number because of this anecdote:

I worked at a start-up a few years ago. I worked on a PHP-powered website that spoke to a Java-powered (Spring/Hibernate) service layer. The PHP team consisted of one: me. The Java team consisted of over 10 engineers. I outpaced them easily and consistently.

In other projects with similar divisions, I've had similar experiences, though not always so dramatic.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#177

Post by wyqueshocec »

mtrimpe wrote: post #127
wyqueshocec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, the Spring one would take 10x as long to make, which means more developer cost and more feedback reaction time. Certainly not a deal breaker, but a cost/tradeoff one must consider. Edit: clarity.

Do you have actual experience with developers of similar skill levels building a similar app in Spring and Rails? While undoubtedly less expressive I think most of the bad rep Spring gets is because it's used in "Enterprise", which means programmers that are, if not of lower level, constantly interrupted and yanked around and told what not to do. I wouldn't choose Spring anymore because there are better alternatives,…

Not rails. I've never used rails in a serious production application.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#178

Post by elechi »

rufugee wrote: post #174
rufugee wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, so good. It's very different from your typical template-driven approach. We have a decent amount of Swing experience, and developing with Vaadin feels similar (but much easier) than Swing. If you are developing business-facing applications and not just consumer web sites, as we are, I think Vaadin makes a lot of sense. It might even make sense for consumer sites, but that's not our current target.

I should also say: putting together a new screen (form or otherwise) in Vaadin is extremely fast. It's the fastest I've ever been able to develop web-based UIs, simply because all I'm forced to think about is Java.

I see. I found it to be a little difficult in terms of dealing with data, especially messing around with the Table object. Best of luck to your project.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#179

Post by cheald »

pfalls wrote: post #60
kbd wrote: post #50

What about Puma ( http://puma.io ), Goliath ( http://goliath.io ) or Unicorn ( http://unicorn.bogomips.org/ ) instead of Passenger in the Ruby stack?

We're looking into moving to unicorn as the community has suggested. If anyone is interested in setting up Puma or Goliath, we'd be interested in testing those out as well.

For something like the query tests where you're IO-bound, Puma is going to annihilate the competition. For CPU-bound tests like JSON generation, unicorn with multiple workers is going to perform better.

It's worth noting that Rails' default JSON solution is the compatible-everywhere pure-Ruby JSON generator. Using a drop-in replacement like the oj gem will drastically improve throughput there.

I didn't get to the pull request for this round, but tweaking the GC parameters for the Ruby install should dramatically improve the general performance of the non-JRuby Ruby tests, as well. I'll see if I can get a PR in. :)

Post reply on HN