note
tirwhan
<blockquote><i></i></blockquote>
<p>Hmm, I'm doubtful. AFAICS the assumption he makes is that simply having a persistent perl interpreter in memory, which loads scripts and modules at runtime, will save a lot of time and processing power. I don't think that assumption is correct. Try this in your shell:</p>
<c>
sh-3.1$ time perl -e ''
real 0m0.005s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
sh-3.1$ time perl -MCGI::Simple -e ''
real 0m0.026s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m0.000s
</c>
<p>Loading the perl interpreter, compiling and executing the noop takes 0.005 seconds, whereas doing the same and loading the [cpan://CGI::Simple] module takes more than five times as long (you can try this with [cpan://CGI] as well, but that's a little unkind ;-). His proposition would only manage to save a small part of the 0.005 seconds, namely the time it takes the OS to fork and start a new process and load the perl interpreter into memory. So I may have some flaw in my thinking here (in which case I'd be thankful if someone more knowledgeable than me could point it out), but I just don't see the point of his mod_perllite.</p>
<p>Caveat: above is on Linux, things may be very much different on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows|fork-challenged platforms] ;-).</p>
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-237051">
<br><i>All dogma is stupid.</i>
</div></div>
649483
649483