[Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

Zbigniew Lukasiak zzbbyy at gmail.com
Fri Apr 23 12:08:51 GMT 2010

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Oleg Pronin <syber.rus at 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.


More information about the Catalyst mailing list