Rails - May 2006 - rxml vs rhtml

I have been wondering if anyone here knows which format is faster for 
your templates? I am curious cause in the near future I may be using 
some expensive scripts (timewise) and would like to try and squeak out 
as much performance as possible. Is Ruby like other languages (ASP 
classic for example) that inccur a penalty by switching between HTML and 
Ruby Code?

Ben

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I''m not entirely sure what you mean. I don''t really see how
there can
be a difference, either with Ruby or with ASP. HTML is XML, just a
specific implementation, and there won''t be a difference as far as I
can see. Of course, someone wiser may tell you otherwise.
-N


On 24/05/06, Benjamin Pyles <darushin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have been wondering if anyone here knows which format is faster for
> your templates? I am curious cause in the near future I may be using
> some expensive scripts (timewise) and would like to try and squeak out
> as much performance as possible. Is Ruby like other languages (ASP
> classic for example) that inccur a penalty by switching between HTML and
> Ruby Code?
>
> Ben
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

On 5/24/06, njmacinnes@gmail.com <njmacinnes@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I''m not entirely sure what you mean. I don''t really see
how there can
> be a difference, either with Ruby or with ASP. HTML is XML, just a
> specific implementation, and there won''t be a difference as far as
I
> can see. Of course, someone wiser may tell you otherwise.
> -N
I think he''s asking which is faster, ERB (rhtml) or Builder (rxml).
I''ve not used Builder or done any benchmarks so I''m afraid I
can''t
answer the question.  I doubt that the bottleneck in the application
will be the template language, though I suppose it is possible.

Ah, yes, sorry about that. But yes, I concur. There''s no point
spending ages with the decision. I would suggest you go with ERb
because it''s more widely used.
-N

On 24/05/06, Jeremy Evans <jeremyevans0@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 5/24/06, njmacinnes@gmail.com <njmacinnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I''m not entirely sure what you mean. I don''t really
see how there can
> > be a difference, either with Ruby or with ASP. HTML is XML, just a
> > specific implementation, and there won''t be a difference as
far as I
> > can see. Of course, someone wiser may tell you otherwise.
> > -N
>
> I think he''s asking which is faster, ERB (rhtml) or Builder
(rxml).
> I''ve not used Builder or done any benchmarks so I''m
afraid I can''t
> answer the question.  I doubt that the bottleneck in the application
> will be the template language, though I suppose it is possible.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

unknown wrote:
> I''m not entirely sure what you mean. I don''t really see
how there can
> be a difference, either with Ruby or with ASP. HTML is XML, just a
> specific implementation, and there won''t be a difference as far as
I
> can see. Of course, someone wiser may tell you otherwise.
> -N
Actually with ASP 3.0, using intermixed statemtents caused a big 
performance bottleneck to the point micorsoft actually recommended that 
users group their statement types into as large of blocks as possible 
and use the Response.Write method wherever possible.

I was wonder if Ruby had similar issues with respect to Builder or ERB.
>From the sounds of it though it seems that it really doesn''t
matter.
Ben

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Ok, so we''re going slightly off topic here. But I''m not
disputing that
there was a performance hit when switching between ASP and HTML. But
that performance hit would have been just the same as when switching
between ASP and XML. You see my point now? But anyway, that''s a bit a
irrelevant now, because I''m never going back to ASP, nevermind ASP
3.0, and I wasn''t aware you were talking about the difference between
ERb and Builder, so my initial point was a little irrelevant anyway.
-N

On 25/05/06, Benjamin Pyles <darushin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> unknown wrote:
> > I''m not entirely sure what you mean. I don''t really
see how there can
> > be a difference, either with Ruby or with ASP. HTML is XML, just a
> > specific implementation, and there won''t be a difference as
far as I
> > can see. Of course, someone wiser may tell you otherwise.
> > -N
>
> Actually with ASP 3.0, using intermixed statemtents caused a big
> performance bottleneck to the point micorsoft actually recommended that
> users group their statement types into as large of blocks as possible
> and use the Response.Write method wherever possible.
>
> I was wonder if Ruby had similar issues with respect to Builder or ERB.
> >From the sounds of it though it seems that it really doesn''t
matter.
>
> Ben
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>