On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Oleg Pronin <syber....@gmail.com> wrote: > Can you hear the difference between 3mln/s and 24k/s ? > > I do not say that using hashes are good. But i'm sure that developers > MUST NOT use super-slow frameworks like MooseXXXX-shit (which tries to > emulate perl6 on perl5: what for???) only to get "good maintened > code". That's the own problems of developers how do they organize > internals. Why users of Catalyst must suffer from that ? Or you wanna > tell that "good maintened code" must have a price of >100x slow down > ??? that an absurdity can't you see it?
Well - this is not that absurd as you seem to think - the meaning of that "100x slow down" depends much on where it happens. If it happens in a tight loop - then it can be harmful - if it happens on some one-off operation then it mostly does not really matter. It is not that using Moose slows your application 100 times - it can slow some parts of it - but how that relates to the overall performance - this depends on many things. I think that most of Catalyst users found that it's port to the Moose framework did not slow their applications much - but there sure there will be some cases that this change was introducing some problems. Unfortunately it's always about tradeoffs. But if you have a real-life example where the port caused a 100 times slow down - then I am sure the developers here would like to hear about the details. Cheers, Zbigniew http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/