Re: Memory efficiency, anonymous vs named's vs local subroutines (anon < named )

[BrowserUk]

Anonymous subroutines use substantially less memory than named subroutines.

For the following simple subs (where nnnnnnn is a number between 0 .. 1e6):

sub Fnnnnnn { 
    my( $a, $b, $c ) = @_; 
    my $x = nnnnnn; 
    return $a * $b - $c; 
}

$f[ nnnnnn ] = sub { 
    my( $a, $b, $c ) = @_; 
    my $x = nnnnnn; 
    return $a * $b - $c; 
}

The anonymous sub uses ~3k per sub whereas the named version uses ~4.5k per sub (64-bit perl 5.18).

Update: specious conclusion removed. (The eval was failing silently and assigning undef to the array.)

[thanos1983]

Hello BrowserUk,

Thank you for your time and effort, reading and replying to my question. Nice, thanks for the information that I was looking.

But I guess it seems I will stay with simple named functions to my scripts from now on. Unless it is necessary to work differently (rear case).

[sundialsvc4]

I’m sorry, BrowserUK, but I really don’t quite understand the last sentence in that post.   There is no eval statement in what remains, and therefore I really don’t know if you meant to retract the assertion that you made in the first sentence of your post.   I also don’t quite see the point of your code-sample since it does not appear (as it stands now) to be either complete or runnable.

Ergo, “huh?”

I implicitly assume, always, that “you know whereof you speak,” and especially that you ordinarily work in resource-intensive applications, but I do not grok what you are trying to say here.   Maybe it’s the consequence of previous-versions and edits that I never saw?

Please clarify, preferably in a reply to, vs. a rewrite of, the above post.   Thank you.

[Anonymous Monk]

You don't even mark updates to your own nodes (example), so you don't get to complain to others.