One is a fully featured MOP implementation with all the goodies of the Perl 6 object model... and the other makes trivial accessors to save typing.
I saw it as more of a compliment, because obviously we're comparing apples and oranges here.
So then Moose::Tiny shows and I of course assume it's a joke by some random person unrelated to Moose itself.
A little annoyed that they are taking some liberties with the
Much to my surprise, Moose supremo Steven Little turns up in defense of Moose::Tiny suggesting it is a "Hilarious social commentary on the absurd concept of second level namespace ownership".
On the one hand, I don't see a problem with "ownership" (in a sense) of a suffix... there's no difference in the level of protection available. I could easily walk all over DBI:: and there's nothing in PAUSE to stop me.
BUT, if the Moose people do indeed feel that they want to be included in a comparison, well fair enough.
So, how does Moose::Tiny compare to Object::Tiny?
Well, in favour of Moose::Tiny is that it saves one additional character of typing, with an otherwise identical interface.
Installation: Moose::Tiny has a number of recursive dependencies (and a few more build_requires deps not shown) with non-perfect cpan testers results (72% aggregate success installing).
Memory: Moose::Tiny uses 4.5 megabytes of memory. This is around 550 times larger than Object::Tiny, or a more impressive sounding 55,000% larger
Startup: Moose::Tiny takes around a second to load up on the virtual I'm currently working in. Granted that's also in the debugger, so it's WAY slower than it could be, but Object::Tiny does not take any noticable time to load, even in the same scenario.
That's just what I had time to test when I first saw Moose::Tiny uploaded.
I'm not on a computer with a working Perl atm to complete the comparison (Intarweb cafe to check mail), so I'll leave it to someone else to do the rest (accessor speed, et al) but suffice it to say Object::Tiny and Moose really ARE completely different beasts.