decruft 0.1.1

Extract clean, readable content from web pages
Documentation 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

```json
{
  "title": "Framework Performance Benchmarks",
  "author": "Jordan Lee",
  "site": "Jordan Lee",
  "published": ""
}
```

We measured the response latency of several popular frameworks under realistic workloads. Here are the results:

| Framework | Latency (ms) | Year | Runtime | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Alpha](https://example.com/alpha) | 12 | 2019 | Native | **Fastest overall** |
| [Bravo](https://example.com/bravo) | 25 | 2020 | JIT | Uses **aggressive caching** |
| [Charlie 2.0](https://example.com/charlie) | 40 | 2018 | Interpreted | Legacy support only |
| Delta **optimized** | 55 | 2021 | Native | Requires [custom config](https://example.com/config) |
| [Echo](https://example.com/echo) | 90 | 2017 | VM | **Most popular** in surveys |
| Foxtrot | 150 | 2022 | Interpreted | Still in **beta** |

The fastest frameworks tend to use native compilation, while interpreted runtimes show higher latency across the board.

## Memory Usage

| Framework | Peak Memory (MB) | Idle Memory (MB) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Alpha | 45 | 12 |
| Bravo | 120 | 38 |
| Charlie 2.0 | 200 | 95 |
| Echo | 310 | 150 |

Memory consumption varies widely and does not always correlate with latency performance.