Hacker News Reader

I'm actually quite perplexed as to why the blog author chose to use the WSGIRef which is known to be one of the slowest of the bunch according to this much more thorough benchmark:

http://nichol.as/benchmark-of-python-web-servers

Even more perplexed, why wasn't the payload and the WSGI apps sources published?

View on HN

Your observation is good. Author should clarify this. But in his next articles he shows benchmark against other web frameworks, which shows more justified results

His articles don't justify anything. I don't know what his payloads are or how he produced them in the apps. For all I know these 2 "benchmarks" are unreproducible. The author said he wanted to try science, there's nothing scientific about these 2 articles at all.

That doesn't really answer why use the slowest one with PyPy (and no, uWSGI does not work for PyPy, but a lot of stuff does)

uWSGI works with PyPY (Obviously with lot of limitations on the features). http://projects.unbit.it/uwsgi/wiki/PyPy The problem is that for the vast majority of the webapps there is (still) no advantage. I only wanted to focus on that as i have invested days on (really complex for me) pypy sources, and i do not want people to ignore it ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com