Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?

in reply to CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?

However you want to look at this data it equates to being able to handle a lot more requests on the same server. To change from CGI to CGI::Simple is a one line change as the interface is identical.... Is it worthwhile considering? For me yes, for you who knows?

I think it is very much worth considering, if you (like me) usually use only the methods also in CGI::Simple. It can mean that your site is put to better use, more happy users due to speed-up, and in theory can save costs due to not needing to upgrade. Well, no I don't really believe that to be true on account on just this change, but who knows? This, together with other optimizations can very well amount to this.

I also believe in doing things faster and better when it is worth it. Changing just one line in each script (a job for perl?) and gain that sounds very good to me. And I just can't see how it would hurt (unless your module is broken, of course).

Or maybe it is just my old days as a C=64 hacker that keeps on liking any optimization that can be done. Those were the days... :) Although I still withstand that some of the same thinking is good, and needful, for succesful web programming. Anyone who has visited (or failed to) a bogged down site should agree.

Comment on Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough? by tachyon (Chancellor) on Feb 16, 2002 at 19:35 UTC
unless your module is broken, of course This is of course a grave concern. I am fairly confident that it is not too broken and somewhat reassured that it runs the CGI.pm test suite as well as a large number of unit tests. I wrote unit tests (well actually I wrote a perl script that wrote stubs for most of them) for every function in void, scalar and array context so the test suite is extensive. I have checked the install under Win95, 98 and NT and Linux Redhat and Mandrake and FreeBSD and it installs fine. Despite this any QA specialist will tell you there is always another bug, indeed Ovid has already found a blatant one (under mod_perl). I am hopeful that some of the monks who run development servers may consider the speed benefit worthwhile to experiment with it. It is only through widespread testing that you can truly start to feel confident that a piece of software is really stable. cheers tachyon s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?
by tachyon (Chancellor) on Feb 16, 2002 at 19:35 UTC

unless your module is broken, of course

This is of course a grave concern. I am fairly confident that it is not too broken and somewhat reassured that it runs the CGI.pm test suite as well as a large number of unit tests. I wrote unit tests (well actually I wrote a perl script that wrote stubs for most of them) for every function in void, scalar and array context so the test suite is extensive.

I have checked the install under Win95, 98 and NT and Linux Redhat and Mandrake and FreeBSD and it installs fine.

Despite this any QA specialist will tell you there is always another bug, indeed Ovid has already found a blatant one (under mod_perl). I am hopeful that some of the monks who run development servers may consider the speed benefit worthwhile to experiment with it. It is only through widespread testing that you can truly start to feel confident that a piece of software is really stable.

cheers

tachyon

s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

[reply]

In Section Meditations