[Catalyst] Alternatives to Catalyst ?
zzbbyy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 26 10:22:35 GMT 2010
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:36, Dermot <paikkos at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 April 2010 18:01, J. Shirley <jshirley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Benchmark: running all, low, sep for at least 1 CPU seconds...
>>> all: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.11 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.11 CPU) @
>>> 2917341.44/s (n=3238249)
>>> low: 0 wallclock secs ( 1.27 usr + 0.04 sys = 1.31 CPU) @
>>> 12930179.39/s (n=16938535)
>>> sep: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.21 usr + 0.01 sys = 1.22 CPU) @
>>> 3223081.15/s (n=3932159)
>>> Subroutines suck, lets all use hashrefs.
>> Now that it's quietened down, I can ask a question. Does this I mean
>> it's preferable to use
>> rather than
>> Obviously I'd rather use the faster method but if I'm breaking the
>> encapsulation in some ways that's going to bite me later, I'd steer
> Unless you're doing method calls in a tight loop somewhere in your
> code you *shouldn't care about this*. Now I've written code that
> actually *did* suffer from method call overhead but since you're just
> casually asking it's very unlikely that you're doing the same.
> Don't sprinkle premature optimizations around your codebase just
> because someone produced a benchmark showing one is faster than the
> other. You should be doing *profiling* of your entire program, not
> micro-optimizing something that's likely 0.0001% of its total runtime.
This is a fine advice - but unfortunately the ->param method call
suffers from additional problem - which is described in much detail in
the documentation (go to the NOTE at:
More information about the Catalyst