These web framework tests have been really interesting to look at, and each time I've been saddened to see that Rails/Ruby, the framework/language I program with most days, is consistently near the bottom. With Adequate Record now being merged into master, I'm hoping we start climbing the speed test records.<p>But a question that keeps coming up in my mind is that there are metrics that would be much harder to compare, but might be more useful in my book.<p>For example, I'd love to see a "framework olympics" where different developers build an agreed upon application/website on an agreed upon server using their favorite framework. The application has to be of some decent complexity, and using tools that an average developer using the framework might use.<p>In the end, you could compare the complexity of the code, the average page response time, maintainability/flexibility, and the time it took to actually develop the app and the results could let developers know what they sacrifice or what they gain by using one framework over the other. I know a lot of these metrics could reflect the developer themselves vs the actual framework, but it might also be a tool to let you know what an average developer, given a weekend, might be able to produce. It would also help me to see an application written a ton of different ways -- so I can make good decisions about what framework to choose based on my needs.<p>In the end, speed only tells us so much -- and speed is not the only metric that we consider when we write applications -- otherwise it looks like most developers would be coding their web apps in Gemini.