Subject: RE: [xsl] xsltproc (was Re: XSL-List Digest V4 #417) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:15:08 +0100 |
> > Most popular XSLT processors are written in Java, Python, or Perl: > > Saxon, Xalan, 4XSLT ... xsltproc is faster than them by a wide and > > probably permanent margin. > > I don't want to get into a which is faster debate but this is > really suspect. > I benchmark processors as part of my job and under no > circumstances have I > found this to be true. I have found many of the Java > processor are quicker > than libxslt, including jd.xslt, Resin, Saxon and XT. Because > of differences > between JVM implementations the margin is different between > Windows/Linux. In > fact in a league table of Windows processors libxslt comes > in 6th out of 11. > If you are measuring a single-shot transformation executed from the command line then of course the Java processors have a big disadvantage because the Java VM takes 5 seconds or so to warm up. So as always, different people will get different answers if they measure different things. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx work: Michael.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xsltproc (was Re: XSL-Lis, Kevin Jones | Thread | Re: [xsl] xsltproc (was Re: XSL-Lis, Jeff Kenton |
RE: [xsl] newbie: multiple output f, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] position() within for-eac, Michael Kay |
Month |