On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 05:55:29PM +0100, Alex Francis wrote: > The flip side is addressing the concerns some people have. Any > comments on any of these would be gratefully received. > > * Performance - object creation in particular being a lot slower > (circa 25 times slower than a basic blessed hash, benchmarked using > Moose 0.94)
I have no idea whether it's also slower to access (some) fields of Moosey objects than normal objects, but it's certainly something that Moose sceptics will ask about, so I suggest benchmarking that too. Depending on the lifetime of your objects, very slow instantiation might not matter much - much like how it doesn't matter if a mod_perl-ised Apache takes an extra coupla minutes to start. > * Roles are a mixed blessing and can encourage some very complex code, > especially if inheritance is thrown into the mix I thought roles were meant to do away with inheritance. > Of course, if you think Moose is a bad choice, I'd also be interested > in your opinions and experiences. Is this for a new installation or application, or are you intending to port an existing code-base to Moose? I'd be very sceptical about the latter, if only because the time taken means you can't respond to change requests for ages - or if you do, you are effectively working on two dissimilar code-bases at once, which makes the programmers' jobs harder. Especially when you consider that real-world code often has fairly complex dependencies between different parts of the application. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist EINE KIRCHE! EIN KREDO! EIN PAPST! _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
