On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Stephen R. Wilcoxon wrote: > > It was pretty slow. I know that the main reason people use Date::Calc is > > that it's really fast. In order to provide a reasonable alternative I > > wanted to try to focus on speed as well as functionality. > > For me (and the company I work for), Dave is correct. I'd love to use > DateTime, but until it is as fast as Date::Calc (and more mature than > current), we'll stick with Date::Calc with a custom wrapper to add some of > the functionality of Date::Manip. Date::Manip and several other modules > we tried were too slow.
It's hard to say what "as fast as Date::Calc" would mean, since DateTime.pm does a lot more stuff than Date::Calc. For example, if you wanted to compare two different datetimes with two different time zones, you'd have to manage the offset handling yourself when using Date::Calc. With DateTime.pm you don't. Similarly, when doing date math DateTime.pm properly handles DST changes and so on, with Date::Calc you'd once again have to do this yourself. I started tying to come up with some benchmarks to compare the two but they just didn't make any sense. Date::Calc is definitely still faster, but there are things that are part of the core of DateTime.pm that Date::Calc simply doesn't do. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
