On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:36, Dermot <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 April 2010 18:01, J. Shirley <[email protected]> wrote: >> __END__ >> 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 > > $c->req->{parameters}->{foo} > > rather than > > $c->req->param('foo') > > 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 > clear.
"Obviously". 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. _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
