[cgiapp] CGI::Application status update from the maintainer

[Mark Stosberg]

On 09/15/2012 05:00 PM, Jiří Pavlovský wrote:
> On 15.9.2012 3:22, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> Regarding performance, I recently benchmarked accessor generation time 
>> for Moo vs Mouse vs Moose vs manual accessors (what CGI::App uses) and 
>> raw hashes. In a persistent environment like you are using Moose was 
>> generating 162,999 accessers *per second* on my laptop. I suspect that 
>> wouldn't be your botteneck. :) This was only marginally slower than 
>> the "manual accessors" benchmark, which would be close to 
>> CGI::Application, delivering 187,617 accessors per second. 
>> https://raw.github.com/gist/3431863/bf6ecdbe23ea8f97a316b2f4ac1fa211cf48ce86/gistfile1.pl
> 
> Thanks for the benchmark. Help me understand the results. Is it really 
> so that Moose is on par with the "manual accessors" while Mouse is an 
> order of magnitude faster?
> And Moo order of magnitude slower?
> I'm using Moose a lot, but now I'll have a look at Mouse for sure.

That's my reading of it. The source code is is there if you want to
check the details of what's going on.

Of course, the benchmark doesn't simulate a full application. Within a
complete real-world application, it's not clear to me how much accessor
speed would matter compared to other factors.

   Mark