Wt and Phalcon are PHP frameworks, with Wt being built entirely in C++ for improved performance and lower resource usage compared to Phalcon which relies on PHP. Performance tests showed Wt had higher request throughput and lower memory usage than Phalcon. Wt also has advantages in security, as its logic is automatically verified, while Phalcon requires manual filtering. Overall Wt provides better performance, security and is more lightweight and environmentally friendly than Phalcon due to its C++ implementation.

1. Which one is Better?

2. ●
Php extension with C
●
Fastest of all PHP framework
●
Multillingual Support
●
Template engine(Volt)
●
Implement Cache

3. Webtoolkit
●
Pronounced as Wt or Witty
●
Purely in C++
●
Interactivity
●
Built In Security
●
Accessibility
●
Environment Friendly

4. Battle Begins...

5. Performance Test

6. Performance Test
Platform:-ARM926EJ-S
Processor Features-:
●
Clock-speed: 200 MHz
●
Linux BogoMIPS: 89.70
●
Caches: 8K instructions, 8K data
Setup
●
Wt version: Git (15/12/2010, > Wt 3.1.7)
●
Target system: Linux uclibc 2.6.23
●
Build environment: buildroot, arm-linux-gcc 4.2.1
●
Options: without multi-threading, libz and OpenSSL
●
Build type: full static build, except for: libstdc++, libc, and libm
●
Runtime settings: ./app.wt --docroot . --http-address 0.0.0.0 –no-compression
Tool used-:Packet Sniffer
Result-: Program New
Session(http)
Event(Http)
hello 0.19s 0.06s
Composer 0.60s 0.07s
Wt

7. Phalcon Performance test
The testing hardware environment is as follows:
●
Operating System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7.4
●
Web Server: Apache httpd 2.2.22
●
PHP: 5.3.15
●
CPU: 2.04 Ghz Intel Core i5
●
Main Memory: 4GB 1333 MHz DDR3
●
Hard Drive: 500GB SATA Disk

9. Tool Used-: ab(Appache Benchmark)
Programm-> Hello world benchmark

10. Result
a.Time Per request

11. b. Request per sec

12. Speed test
Wt-:
Request per sec -: 1052.11
Transfer rate -: 5318.84 Kbytes/sec (Recieved)
Phalcon-:
Request per sec-: 2535.82
Transfer rate-: 517.56 kbytes/sec (Recieved)

13. Security Test

14. SQL Injection EncryptionCSRFXSS
Wt-:
Logic is
automatically
verified
Generate
JavaScript
Doesn't
Relies on
Cookies
SSL/TSL
phalcon Manually
use Filter
Manually
use Tokens
Manually
use Filter SSL

15. Light Weight

16. Wt Light Weight Test
Setup
●
Wt version: Git (16/03/2010, >= Wt 3.1.1)
●
Target system: Linux uclibc 2.6.23
●
Build environment: buildroot, arm-linux-gcc 4.2.1
●
Options: without multi-threading, libz and OpenSSL
●
Build type: full static build, except for: libstdc++, libc, and libm
●
Runtime settings: ./app.wt --docroot . --http-address 0.0.0.0 –no-compression
●
Tool Used-: Pmap
Code Size and Ram Usage in Killo BytesProgram Code (strip) Code(strip+u
px)
Ram basis+
read only
Ram Basis
+write only
Ram/Session
hello 1214 362 2544 228 14.8
composer 1462 420 2796 232 83.6

17. Phalcon Light weight
test
The testing hardware environment is as
follows:
Operating System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7.4
Web Server: Apache httpd 2.2.22
PHP: 5.3.15
CPU: 2.04 Ghz Intel Core i5
Main Memory: 4GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Hard Drive: 500GB SATA Disk

19. Result
No of PHP files included

20. Framework memory usage

21. Burden
phalcon Wt

22. Environment Friendly!

26. Carbon Footprint
1.6 tons per capita
Anually a human produce-:

27. Carbon footprint
(server)
➔ Running on PHP
Number of servers used by facebook: 30 000
Total Carbon Dioxide emmision per year: 59 000 tons
➔ If running on C++
Servers used : 500
Reducing the carbon footprint to 10000 tons
*Google uses 5 00 000 servers.

28. Changes in past few Years.

29. A Step Towards Environment

30. What Else...
?
?

31. Property Webtoolkit(Wt) Phalcon
Aproach Widget-set approach MVC approach
Use Compiler Interpreter
Browser Support Automatically Detects Mannually
Optimisation Automatically as C++
compilers are Smart
Manually
Latency In sub millisecond In Sub millisecond
Amount of work done on
server
less more
Cookies Doesn't Relies on it Relies on it
Event Handling Fantasttically Manually and Good as
compare to Wt
Extreme Powers

32. Thank You!
Save Environment, Save Yourself!