Python blogging software

Paul Rubin http
Sun Sep 17 17:02:45 CEST 2006

Steve Holden <steve at> writes:
> > Fancy frameworks do use caching, but I think of that as a kludgy
> > workaround for lousy performance of the framework itself.  A fast
> > framework should not need caching, except maybe caching gzip output
> > for large blocks of contiguous text.
> The value of caching is mostly for heavy-duty applications built on
> top of the framework. The framework has no control over how much
> computation the application does, but can offer savings by
> "short-circuiting" the repeated execution of lengthy page computations
> in application code.

Fair enough.  I shouldn't have said "lousy performance of the
framework itself" when I should have included the application.  If the
application's page computations are so lengthy, then they too need
speeding up.  

We've got a situation where some big sites (Slashdot, Wikipedia) have
a lot of cached static pages for non-logged-in users (they all see the
same thing), but any user who is logged in sees a version customized
by their preferences, that's usually not cached.  So there's a
perverse incentive to not log in, since you see the static page

I'd really like to get hold of a big active blog or BBS server to
profile it.  It's been puzzling me for years what makes them so slow.
They just paste user-contributed content together with HTML from
templates, so you'd think it shouldn't be too complicated.

More information about the Python-list mailing list