Comments for ronin coder

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Bulak

Bulak — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:37:40 +0000

Just the two cents from a relatively inexperienced web developer: on my shared hosting, rails app (30-40 Mb) always uses more memory than django app (quite similar apps). However, I can’t compare their performance.

Comment on Travel by Scotty

Scotty — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:13:15 +0000

I just wanted to thank you very much for this indepth article. I have already bookmarked your site, when I have more free time I am going to have to do some further browsing. Well back to my dreaming of Panama or back to the books – I wonder which one is going to win out.

Comment on Fast Ruby IO by Lyle

Lyle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:10:48 +0000

Because of your block size of your system is 4KB. You don’t even need to run benchmark if you had read the bible, Advanced Programming in UNIX environment writen by Richard Stevens. Since read buffer between file system and device driver has 4KB size, system call invokes no more than it needed ($file_size / $block_size + 1 times).

Anyway, nice try and I’m interested on the way you run the test.

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Ennuyer.net » Blog Archive » Rails Reading - Oct 20, 2009

Ennuyer.net » Blog Archive » Rails Reading - Oct 20, 2009 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:28:00 +0000

[...] Django for Rails devs at ronin coder [...]

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Gonzalo Delgado (gonzalodelgado) 's status on Thursday, 08-Oct-09 18:45:23 UTC - Identi.ca

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:45:43 +0000

[...] muy buena comparación http://rcoder.net/content/django-for-rails-devs [...]

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Aron Pilhofer

Aron Pilhofer — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:34:17 +0000

Andy: I have no idea how you’re running Rails (if you are actually running rails), but with Passenger + REE our per-process footprint is closer to 30 megs. Rails also is multithreaded, as Piotr notes.

As for the post, very nice writeup! I largely agree with everything here, even thought I’m a Rails guy. I’d add a couple more wins for Django: The admin is a very slick feature, and I absolutely prefer the templatting language vs. erb, which invites all sorts of problems. Of course you can emulate both with various Rails plugins, but that’s not the point here.

On the Rails side, I think ActiveRecord is a far, far, far better ORM in general, and Rails 3 promises to vastly improve things further by allowing the ORM to be completely swappable.

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Rv

Rv — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:37:15 +0000

+1 for Django

Comment on Django for Rails devs by ShawnR

ShawnR — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:09:39 +0000

Excellent, level-headed analysis. Thanks for the post.

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Piotr Sarnacki

Piotr Sarnacki — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:31:15 +0000

Andy:

Django is faster than rails, but please check your informations before writing

http://guides.rubyonrails.org/2_2_release_notes.html#thread-safety – it has been released about a year ago.

Comment on Django for Rails devs by Andy

Andy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:38:18 +0000

I’d say another difference between Django & Rails is performance and resource consumption.

Django is significantly faster than Rails. It also uses significantly fewer memory. A Rails process typically can be around 100MB, while a Django process is more like 20MB. Django can be run in multithreaded mode, so you can have 5 threads in a 30MB Django process vs. 500MB for 5 Rails processes.

This means that with Django you get a bigger bang for your buck spent on hardware. If you have a $20 256MB VPS that needs to run Linux, Apache, Django or Rails, and MySQL – with Rails youwon’t be able to serve more than 1 concurrent user while with Django you can serve 5 or 10. Same if you have a 8G dedicated server – you can serve far more concurrent users with Django than with Rails.