Front page | perl.moose |
Postings from October 2010
Re: Overhead of using MooseX::Declare
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Stevan Little
Date:
October 22, 2010 04:07
Subject:
Re: Overhead of using MooseX::Declare
Message ID:
B37BC954-943B-43D7-A1AF-89701B417483@iinteractive.com
Shlomi,
MooseX::Declare has a well known and fairly heavy overhead cost and
anyone who uses it should be well aware of this so they can make the
choice as to whether the syntactic sugar it provides is worth it.
However your comparison (as has been pointed out) is not really fair
since Class::XSAccessor and MX::Declare are absolutely not in any way
equivalent. A more relevant comparison and valuable discussion would
be the difference in overhead between MX::Declare and plain old Moose.
Also, don't feed the trolls please.
- Stevan
On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 October 2010 18:01:58 Evan Carroll wrote:
>>> Files=11, Tests=31, 44 wallclock secs ( 0.22 usr 0.05 sys + 39.28
>>> cusr
>>> 1.48 csys = 41.03 CPU)
>>> Result: PASS
>>
>> You're using /usr/bin/time, that makes this the most useless
>> benchmark
>> in the history of mailing lists everywhere.
>
> We'd better be careful when you're flinging these hyperboles.
>
>> You're not even testing
>> one thing, you're testing eleven (t/001*-t/0010* + t/99*) that
>> presumably all have `use Moose`. You're unrevealing statement is akin
>> to this, "MooseX::Declare has high startup costs." And, that's why
>> the
>> trend wagon still makes frequent stops at Mouse.pm, and the 3 year
>> old
>> idle project MooseX::Compile still gets talked about as an "upcoming
>> fix".
>>
>>>>> (28-2) / 11.0
>>
>> 2.3636363636363638
>>
>
> Actually, it's more than that because two tests exit at the start
> due to
> missing dependencies or environment variables.
>
>> Seriously, MooseX::Declare adding less than 2.36 seconds to start up
>> on an old machine.. That's the post..
>
> Where do you see the less thing? It gave you 2.363636.
>
> First of all, 2.36 seconds is noticably a lot, especially given
> there are a
> large number of tests which together add up to 20 extra seconds and
> an 11 time
> increase. On the same machine, my solver can solve on average 1,013
> deals of
> Freecell in those 2.36 seconds.
>
> Furthermore, while it's a Pentium 4 2.4 GHz machine, which is a bit
> old, I'm
> hesistant to call it underpowered. I was told that a Pentium I 100
> MHz is
> roughly as fast as the Cray 1 supercomputer used to be, and a
> P4-2.4GHz is
> several measures faster than the original Pentium I. On my P4-2.4GHz
> machine I
> can comfortably run KDE 4, and lots of other programs.
>
> Finally, I'm not in the mood to unnecessarily wait 28 seconds for a
> test suite
> to run, when it should and can take less than 2 seconds.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
> My Aphorisms - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html
>
> <rindolf> She's a hot chick. But she smokes.
> <go|dfish> She can smoke as long as she's smokin'.
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply
> .
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next