Hi Mark, There is a similar discussion in mst's blog: http://shadow.cat/blog/matt-s-trout/moo-versus-any-moose/
Your benchmarks are very interesting, though. Julio On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mark Stosberg <m...@summersault.com> wrote: > > > A win for the MOP it seems :)...and a nice feeling idiom to boot. > > Speaking of Moose, here's a bit of discussion on Any::Moose vs > alternatives. > > I had heard people talk in general terms how Any::Moose might be > problematic, but not a lot of specific examples. > > Here's rjbs providing one, involving "Throwable": > http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1916 > > I ran into another one at work yesterday, hitting what I call the > "Any::Moose tipping point". > > The Moose tipping point is the point at when your project grows to gain > Moose as a dependency somewhere in the chain. Once you've passed that > tipping point and paid for loading it, you might as well use it in more > places. > > The Any::Moose tipping point is when you are rolling along in your > project using Any::Moose, and you run into a must-have dependency which > is Moose-specific and has no Mouse equivalent. (for me, I started using > MooseX::Singleton to make sure our configuration file was only loaded > and parsed once). We use our "config role" nearly everywhere, so we > might as well refactor places that had "use Any::Moose" to just "use > Moose" directly. > > The big reason for us to bother with Any::Moose was to make our unit > tests run faster. (I got the test suite down from 25 minutes to 4.5 > minutes using various techniques, but taking a second or two extra for > each of hundreds of test files still matters for us). > > However, just in the past few days, "forkprove" has been developed and > pushed to CPAN, and it addresses just this case. It allows prove to > pre-load Moose, and then fork a new process with a copy for each test > file run. This is the same pre-loading strategy used by Apache/mod_perl. > > At this point, I'm not interested in using Moose in the new project > because of it's slower load time under... I want to use one of the > lighter alternatives. > > Some have recommended or starting using Moo as an alternative to Mouse > or Any::Moose, but I wasn't pleased with how slow the accessors > benchmarks turned out for it compared to some alternatives: > > https://gist.github.com/3431863 > > We've discussed it some before, but I'll re-open the discussion about > which Moose-compatible variant to use in the new project. > > Mark > > > > > > > > ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ > ## ## > ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## > ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## > ## ## > ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## > ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## > ## ## > ################################################################ > > ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
