[Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?

[Ben van Staveren]

> 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?
>   
Cost of hardware to compensate the slowdown is generally speaking much 
less than the cost of programmers to maintain crappy spaghetti code.

Yes, Moose has overhead, quite significant at that during startup, but 
on the whole, those few CPU cycles aren't something you will be bothered 
by. Most servers these days have an abundance of them, you see. When you 
start hitting 100% CPU, you can most likely get better gains from 
streamlining the code you have as opposed to switching to the 1995 way 
of doing things.

> It is possible to get good code (with MIXINS, C3, etc) without such a
> great losses. If you see that something slows down application more
> than 2x why do you use it? kick it off ! Benchmark.pm is your friend!
>
>   
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Benchmarking is nice, but benchmarks 
also tend to cloud issues. Yes, direct hash accesses are faster than 
going through an accessor which does validation. Simple matter of the 
latter needing more ops to do what it does.
> Finnaly, you are creating framework for other people and the main
> thing is how it looks outside, not inside.
>
>   
Yes, at the same time, you're advocating that Catalyst should be coded 
according to your wishes and desires, in order to be faster. That's 
great, what about those of us who have to deal with maintaining large 
Catalyst  applications, where we care a bit more about the ease of 
maintenance than the cost of the hardware needed to run it.

On that note, by the time you have an app big enough to need more oomph, 
you're probably at a point in time where you can afford to pay this 
cost. Your average garden variety home-brew app doesn't need major 
horsepower, but it needs to be easily maintained.

> Sorry for my "hard" post, i'm just a little nervious :(
>   
Well, no hard feelings, but do try to back up statements like 'Moose 
shit' with facts ;)

-- 
Ben van Staveren
phone: +62 81 70777529
email: benvanstaveren at gmail.com