Re: CGI::Application status update from the maintainer

On 15.9.2012 3:22, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Regarding performance, I recently benchmarked accessor generation time 
> for Moo vs Mouse vs Moose vs manual accessors (what CGI::App uses) and 
> raw hashes. In a persistent environment like you are using Moose was 
> generating 162,999 accessers *per second* on my laptop. I suspect that 
> wouldn't be your botteneck. :) This was only marginally slower than 
> the "manual accessors" benchmark, which would be close to 
> CGI::Application, delivering 187,617 accessors per second. 
> https://raw.github.com/gist/3431863/bf6ecdbe23ea8f97a316b2f4ac1fa211cf48ce86/gistfile1.pl


Thanks for the benchmark. Help me understand the results. Is it really 
so that Moose is on par with the "manual accessors" while Mouse is an 
order of magnitude faster?
And Moo order of magnitude slower?
I'm using Moose a lot, but now I'll have a look at Mouse for sure.

-- 
Jiří Pavlovský


#####  CGI::Application community mailing list  ################
##                                                            ##
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp    ##
##                                                            ##
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:          http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/                 ##
##                                                            ##
################################################################