But let's take it positive, and try to make an insightful post worth linking to.

short

Your Mother already convinced me that startup time wouldn't improve much and I'm not a M* user anyway.

So why don't you bench it? :)

long

FWIW some theory for those interested:

The famous "startup time using Moose" actually consists of at least 3 phases, cause in reality Moose is used in every single class involved ¹:

1. Compilation:

   require of Moose.pm at first use Moose;

2. Exporting:

   calling Moose->import() for each use Moose;

3. Application:

   calling exported Moose::subs() sugar like has in each class during their use Class;

Naturally pre-compilation (like "perlcc Moose") can only effect phase 1, which is a one-time advantage.

But YM already pointed out that startup time grows significantly with the number of classes.

conclusion

If you or anyone else is interested in benchmarking it, I'd suggest taking Schwern's test scenario and extend it appropriately to identify these phases.

¹) so what people actually mean is the resulting start up time of modules/classes build with Moose.

update

Of course one could try to benchmark the application of classes created with Moose, i.e. mainly creating objects and calling methods.

But that's not startup time anymore, and hearsay is that runtime is fast enough.

Sounds like trolling ... :/

Really? Sad

Simple yes or no question ... you seemed really really interested, and I know you like to test, so I was wondering if you were planning on doing it ... if i should bookmark this node or not

Well I'm interested in many fields around language design. Getting involved in too many projects its the death of all ambitions.

(And I'm having concerning M** far more doubts and questions than answers)

So, are you going to bench it?

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)}

PS: Je suis Charlie!