How many objects per action was how slow? (Slow for some SLAs may be fast enough for others. )
I think I am hearing that Moose is good for daemons where both Moose's and your progeram's initialization is once only off the critical path, and request / response are lean using factories; and for load-run-exit scripts which don't need introspection, Mouse is compatible, noticably faster, and enough OO? Bill, typing with thumbs ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: James Eshelman <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Drew Taylor <[email protected]> Sent: Thu Feb 03 10:49:37 2011 Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] use Moose ? On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:26:52 -0500 "James Eshelman" <[email protected]> wrote: JE> Thanks Drew. It's good to hear that there's no noticeable RT penalty after JE> startup, and the roles feature looks especially nice, along with the JE> compatibility with Perl 6. -- Jim There's a very noticeable penalty if you instantiate lots of objects. I couldn't use Moose for a database loader, for instance, and had to fall back to simple hashes. The speed difference was (for my specific case, which had lots of small objects) between 2 and 200 times slower with Moose, depending on other factors like hitting swap because the memory usage spiked. This is not surprising considering all that Moose does. I am a big fan of Moose and use it whenever I can, but only if I expect relatively few objects to be created and managed. Otherwise I would at least benchmark the performance and consider how the objects are going to be used. Ted _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
