use Perl

• The Possibilities Boggle The Mind (Score:1)

  by chaoticset (2105)

  How can it be easier to put your Perl code in Mason components instead of Perl modules?

  I asked myself the exact same thing reading through the Mason book, but this stuff is used plenty by people way more experienced than I am -- there have to be good reasons, even if I don't understand them quite yet. I don't quite have a complete answer in my mind yet concerning the modules question, but the start of it is something like this: If you've got lots and lots and lots of Perl modules, it might be really ha

  --
  
  ------------------------------
  You are what you think.
  • Re:The Possibilities Boggle The Mind (Score:1)

    by IlyaM (2933)

    I've used HTML::Mason a lot. In fact I'm still mainting quite complex web site powered by HTML::Mason which I started working on about two years ago. My experience is that putting Perl code for anithing other than HTML generation in Mason components is reciept for disaster. Maintaing Perl modules is much easier than Perl code in Mason components.

    I think HTML::Mason crowd fails a prey of coolness factor. I cannot explain it why but when I discovered HTML::Mason for first time (it must be around 0.6x versio

    --
    

    Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/ [martynov.org])
    • Re:The Possibilities Boggle The Mind (Score:2)

      by autarch (914) on 2003.07.31 11:15 (#22619) Homepage Journal

      So put your code in Perl modules. A Mason app with most of it's code in Perl modules will look more or less like a TT app with most of it's code in Perl modules.
      
      The difference, of course, is that you can break the MVC model when you want to. If you want to all the time, then you'll probably have a mess. But I think 100% MVC is pretty bogus. You jump through ridiculous hoops just to generate the data structures that you pass to your templates, which then iterate through the data structure. You end up coding the same loop/conditional logic twice, once in the controller, and once in the template. This hardly seems like an improvement.
      
      As to unit testing, testing web apps in general is tricky. I'm not sure how this is easier with TT than Mason.
      
      But whatever you like best is fine. Everyone's brain works differently, and different things click for different developers. But to suggest that Mason is inherently going to lead to more of a mess than any other system is ridiculous. What leads to a mess is bad development, and that can be done with any tool or language.

      Reply to This

      Parent

      • Re:The Possibilities Boggle The Mind (Score:1)

        by IlyaM (2933)

        Sorry If I was not clear enough: I was objecting in putting Perl code in Mason components for purposes other than templating.

        If you strickly put all other Perl code in Perl modules then yes, it is almost same as with TT2 (though personally I think it provides much better syntax but it is another story).

        --
        

        Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/ [martynov.org])