Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you write it like a perl app from 10 years ago, they will probably freak out. If you tell someone who doesn't read source code that it is a perl app, they might freak out.

    If you write it like most Catalyst devs say to, you'll probably have a well-engineered and maintainable app.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a webapp developer.

    • The "freak out" comment was more about it being in Perl than the technology. I suspect that if we pitch it as a black box that does HTTP we'll be okay, but I'm a little wary -- because of inexperience, not because I don't think Perl can do what it's supposed to.

      Good words about Catalyst though, thanks.

  • A pre-written app like webmin [1] might suffice.

    But if you're writing it, I suggest starting with CGI::Application.

    As for a database, I'm doubtful you will do well without one, so add BerkeleyDB [2] to the mix.

    [1] []

    [2] []

    • Regarding no database: you can do an awful lot with the filesystem. I have a couple of reasons for wanting to ditch the database:

      1. Acceptance: It's another piece of technology for end-users (IT folks) to object to -- "Perl's okay, but we're an MSSQL shop!"
      2. Complexity: Typical ORM mismatch foo.

      Good thought about BerkeleyDB though. Even though it's gained a lot of complexity you can still use it very simply.

  • It pretty much satisfies all of the items you require, especially if you look at the Catalyst::Plugin::ActionClass::REST (or whatever it's called) on CPAN. I've deployed sites without a database (in fact my geneology [] site has just a single static file as it's "Model". CGI::Application is also a fair choice, though I've never used it directly.

    As for Grant Street Group. I've sent my resume into them twice and never heard from them (not even a confirmation that my email was received). I know others who have ap

  • It is actually quite easy to separate the build system from krang. I did that and use it in my projects. I have put it on google []

  • If you're looking for something with low dependencies and low learning curve, CGI::Application is definitely the way to go. You could also use something like Titanium which is pretty much just a bundle of C::A and some of it's more useful plugins.

    As far as self-contained apps go, you could go the Krang, PAR or CPAN route. All of which have problems:

    PROS - This is what I did for Smolder and it makes installation fairly simple if you know what platforms you're going to deploy to since you can prebu

  • Catalyst has some builtin PAR support. []

    Reading the recent 'perl is dying/dead' threads here [on use.perl] also makes me wonder about hiring.

    They're not dead/dying but sometimes they think life stops, unless/until Perl get the best OO model, easiest deployment, best libraries and so on, and so on. They're just so demanding to their selfs.

    • If we can't improve Perl beyond fixing bugs, why is there even a p5p? When did Perl become the sound of the wall I'm beating my head against?

      • I think we can/should/will (improve Perl 5), but meanwhile we must learn to live with the shortcomings it has. No language or environment is perfect. This wouldn't be a problem, unless clueless people start to believe the FUD arising from this self criticism.

        I really wouldn't like to distract the focus from Perl 6 since it will be a great step forward for the whole world of programming, but there are success stories written all the time with Perl 5. Not seeing this and appreciating it alienates unaware peop

        • The existence of Perl 6 is no excuse not to improve Perl 5. The fact that you can declare a class in Perl 5 with the package keyword and subclass a parent with use base or pushing onto @ISA does not mean we can never add a little syntactic sugar to make that code clearer and more convenient.

  • If you're allowed to build things a bit from the ground up, you should play with Continuity. I've found it to be fantastic for almost direct ports from command line to web interfaces.