NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
I pour the blue liquid on the red liquid. If it doesn't blow up on my
face, I proceed to turn up the flame under the blue liquid, and so on.
I have very little idea of what I am really doing, I just like the
pretty colors :-)
-- Jarkko Hietaniemi
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Uh... What is it? (Score:2)
"Woodstock"? I thought it was an audio related project.
Reply to This
Re:Uh... What is it? (Score:1)
I think the biggest selling point will be that it fixes a lot of design mistakes in Catalyst.
Things like private/public path mapping are not necessary, the way internal forwarding works is completely counter intuitive...
And there is a lot more, especially usability will be weighted very high in Woodstock.
Re:Uh... What is it? (Score:2)
In the same way that Catalyst fixed what you saw as design mistakes in Maypole?
I'm finding it difficult to see the proliferation of Perl frameworks as a good thing. No wonder people see Ruby on Rails as so inviting.
Re:Uh... What is it? (Score:1)
It's a plot to have more wrappers on the CPAN than actual code.
Re:Uh... What is it? (Score:1)
Then you are right, Perl people tend to be quite good at reusing code.
Re:Uh... What is it? (Score:1)
"Actual code" does something beyond implementing the adapter pattern.
Re:Uh... What is it? (Score:1)
Personally, if sri decides he wants to build a framework, that is his business. No?
In Ruby you 1 framework to rule them all. I don't think that is very good at all either.