Re^3: Why should I use perl 5.10?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why should I use perl 5.10? by syphilis (Archbishop) on Dec 21, 2007 at 11:52 UTC
Faster? Anyone got some numbers to prove this? `use Benchmark; timethese(100000, { 'Test' => 'eval{die "x" x 100000 if $] < 5.01}', });` [download] Under perl 5.8: `Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of Test... Test: 15 wallclock secs (14.98 usr + 0.00 sys = 14.98 CPU) @ 66 +73.34/s (n=100000))` [download] Under perl 5.10: `Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of Test... Test: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.02 CPU) @ 62 +50000.00/ (n=100000) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)` [download] Whooooo ... how good is that !!!!! Cheers, Rob	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Why should I use perl 5.10? by Anonymous Monk on Aug 07, 2008 at 19:29 UTC
In a less trivial example... I was benchmarking a module I wrote against one I found on CPAN solving the same problem. I decided to see how using 5.10 compared to using 5.8 at the same time. My module (which was already faster) saw a 10% improvement with 5.10. The CPAN module saw a negligible improvement (about 1%) using 5.10. using 5.10 didn't hurt and in some circumstances added a nice boost. Depends on how you are using perl. Maybe later I'll dig a little deeper and see what the CPAN module did differently to get so little benefit out of 5.10.	[reply]