Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I'll leave the "too many choices" part alone, as I basically agree with hfb. :) Also there have been a couple threads on "separating the wheat from the chaff" on perlmonks recently, so it no longer interests me.

    But I do have to offer another suggestion for the relative success of Maypole and Catalyst. You claimed:

    Just look at Maypole, who could never have predicted that the ORM module they chose (Class::DBI) would so suddenly fall out of favourite with developers and suddenly turn Maypole from the cutti

    • So my conclusion is that the choice of database abstraction layer has little to do with the popularity of Catalyst.

      I agree, but here you're refuting a point that Alias didn't make. He didn't say it made Catalyst more popular than Maypole. His point was that, because "Catalyst embraced choice and diversity", they were able to switch "their default choice [of ORM] ... with relatively little negative effect." That's just one example of how a certain amount of choice in building blocks can allow a frame

      • It's true that there was already some muttering on moving away from Maypole at the time, but it WAS still considered to be the dominant choice for web MVC.

        While it may have happened in any case that people moved away, having Class::DBI going boom most certainly accelerated the migration.

        From the point of view of someone not actively involved in the web MVC developments (since I have my own MVC framework) it was almost an overnight migration, much much faster than you would normally see.

        As for Catalyst vs Jifty, my current suspicion is that they don't truly compete with each other at all, and that the compliment each other.

        Catalyst is by far the best choice when the things you integrate with are more important than your application. In database-centric situations, or where you B play friendly with other people's Important Things, I think Catalyst will continue to be the best choice, as long as they don't screw anything up (and I'm fairly confident that they won't).

        Jifty, should it become successful (and I'm not willing to call it that quite yet) becomes the best choice for the opposite situation, where your application is the most important element, and can dictate how the database works.

        This gives us a good top-end solution highly customisable solution (Catalyst) and a good bottom-end solution (Jifty). There will be most certainly some conflict in the middle grounds, but such is the way of things.

        That said, long term I don't see any other major ecological niches.

        Comparing Maypole to Catalyst is only because of the timeline, not because of their ecological niche.

        Catalyst is not the Maypole killer. Jifty is the Maypole killer.