Forum: Ruby on Rails rxml vs rhtml

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Benjamin P. (Guest)
on 2006-05-24 21:04
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
unknown (Guest)
on 2006-05-24 21:35
(Received via mailing list)
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
Jeremy E. (Guest)
on 2006-05-24 22:49
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/24/06, removed_email_address@domain.invalid 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 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.
unknown (Guest)
on 2006-05-24 23:11
(Received via mailing list)
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
Benjamin P. (Guest)
on 2006-05-25 17:09
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
unknown (Guest)
on 2006-05-25 17:19
(Received via mailing list)
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
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.