|The stupid question is the question not asked|
In short, (in Perl at least) closure is faster than object due to less dereferencing overhead but could be slower due to larger memory requirement? (In the test, the edge of closure over object was diminishing and even reversed when the tasks were getting more "heavy-duty.")
Different question, if I may. I want to focuse on Design, as opposed to Programming.
How would you characterize and procedurize a "functional design process" (if there is such a thing). Like a user manual on Design: the Functional (or Closure) Way.
I hope it's self-evident that design and programming are not always an integrated process. Many people program in Java the imperative or procedural way pretty much, nothing so OO about the design of the codes.
On the other hand, a design framework could be applied more generally even when the tools are not integrated with it. Like, OO Design is a good framework to guide your thinking process to characterize and generalize some human verbal requirements into classes. For instance, you could think of a Webpage being a class and the stored procedure associated with it being methods, even though HTML, SQL, etc are not OO.
Besides the characterization of the process, what would be the examples constrasting the closure/functional of design versus the other whatever ways, along with the advantages--design-wise or conceptual--such as being more succinct, flexible, insightful, etc? (Like, in physics, some people do things the group-theoretic way vs. the good old calculcus way; in economics, game-theoretic vs others. They produce different insights into the same problems and sometimes even different conclusions.)
Take the scripts in the test as examples. Closure counter certainly looks like a cleaner design (or model); object is probably an overkill in this case. With the Turtle, if we need more "methods," object seems like a natural way to go. With directory iterator, I really have no preference towards either.
Update: As a afterthought, maybe some examples on translating some existing OO design/code into closure one (if applicable) would be pedagogically more instructive? Since I suppose more people can relate to OO than closure.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: (On Speed Diff, etc.) Closure on Closures (beta)