I fail to see why this bit of exploration deserves to be described as useless, pointless or void. it takes a few idioms often used for the same purpose, each with surprisingly determined adherents, and tries to find out which is quickest. The results seem valid and well presented, if not very startling. What's the problem?

If your point is that these approaches have very different side effects and that people in the habit of using (...) = @_ and &func are going to need to know that, then I quite agree, but it doesn't invalidate the benchmark.

If the problem is in the methodology then perhaps you could be a little more specific, for the benefit of people like me who cannot see?