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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Really? (Score:2)
Really? You honestly think that a webapp framework should also ship with its own object system, its own cookie parser, its own HTTP server, its own HTTP header system, and to top it off, its own new templating system!
I look at Mojo and can only think that it represents the height of foolish arrogance, and I for one am repelled by it.
Catalyst is far from perfect, but at least the Catalyst developers can concentrate on building a web framework
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with a framework that has such a low barrier to entry?
As Ovid wrote, there is very little required to use it. It's almost like baby talk for a Perl web framework.
What would be wrong with getting to learn about frameworks with Mojolicious::Lite and when you understand them, try to move to the more complete and "grown up" Catalyst.
From alias's Heayy100 [ali.as] Jifty has a dependency of 188 modules and Catalyst isn't in the Top100 so I can only guess (I'll take a WAG and say 100). Which is easier for the
Re: (Score:1)
And once people start coding to it they will not en masse 'move to the more complete and ...' alternatives - this never happens. So this will stay and the simplistic nature will quickly be replaced by more complete and complex implementatio
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that's kind of how PHP started out. They've kicked our tail on what was our home turf in the 90s. And let's face it, Sebastian is not exactly a newbie. And I remember how people told Adam Kennedy that he was wasting his time trying to parse Perl -- sometimes people produce great things when trying to do more than we think they should :)
Re: (Score:1)
I am waiting for the promised Mojo docs for a deeper analysis - but from what I've seen it has a better API than Catalyst - it looks like there was at least some effort put into designing it. So I am not against Mojo as a whole - I am only concerned about that no-dependency policy.
Re:Really? (Score:1)
Rewriting in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. Rewriting poorly, ignoring discoveries of art about what does and doesn't work, and fumbling through well-avoided mistakes is bad.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Something failed in the CPAN a long time ago. Having too much choice between modules (sometimes equally good and sometimes equally bad) means that there's been some serious fragmentation. This is one case where having CPAN so large has not been a benefit.
Re: (Score:1)