Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Catalyst vs CGI::Application

by northwind (Hermit)
on Oct 17, 2007 at 17:13 UTC ( #645515=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Catalyst vs CGI::Application
in thread Catalyst vs CGI::Application

(Yes, this is an addendum to the original question (which I did not pose).)

As you have used both extensivly, could you come up with some simple speed benchmarks? Also, which one scales better under load (think very large number of hits)? And which one has a smaller memory footprint? Yes, I agree power and expressivness are important... but they are not the whole picture (<jest>if they were, everyone would be using Lisp *ducks* :-D </jest>).

Update: Added <jest> tags (because I realized what I wrote could possibly be taken seriously (which I did not intend)).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Catalyst vs CGI::Application
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 17, 2007 at 17:25 UTC
    CgiApp will have a smaller footprint as it uses less modules and, frankly, does less. That said, the Catalyst devteam is very keen on scaling. Now, a major piece of this is how you deploy. Most CgiApp deployments that I've seen/heard about are done under mod_perl. Catalyst tends to deploy under FCGI. That can make a huge difference in your overall memory footprint (MP is often better) and scalability (FCGI is designed around scalability). As for HUGE number of hits, I'd say they can both handle it.

    And, if expressivity wasn't important, you'd be using C and not Perl. Plus, Lisp often beats out C in the Language Shootout. We don't use Lisp because it's not fashionable enough to have a big enough ecology around it. Perl is Lisp minus a few features, but plus CPAN. Perl 6 is meant to be Lisp + CPAN, no minuses.


    My criteria for good software:
    1. Does it work?
    2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
      The process model of FastCGI and mod_perl with a fornt-end proxy are nearly identical, so I expect the memory footprint and scalability will be the same, unless the particular application is somehow able to take advantage of some special capability unique to one of these platforms.
        The difference is that mod_perl requires Apache to be running and FCGI doesn't. Thus, you can scale FCGI onto an app server and leave Apache on the webserver while appservers for mod_perl require Apache to be running.

        My criteria for good software:
        1. Does it work?
        2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://645515]
help
Chatterbox?
[LanX]: Hotfix seems to work properly, /me leaving details to erzuuli :)
[RonW]: that's good

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (8)
As of 2017-12-14 21:45 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?




















    Results (412 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?