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
help them think they understand.
--Larry Wall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Will they freak out that this is a Perl app? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's a big topic... (Score:1)
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] http://www.webmin.com/ [webmin.com]
[2] http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/index.html [oracle.com]
Re: (Score: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:
Good thought about BerkeleyDB though. Even though it's gained a lot of complexity you can still use it very simply.
I'm partial to Catalyst. (Score:1)
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 [prather.org] 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
http://code.google.com/p/btfm/ (Score:1)
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 http://code.google.com/p/btfm/ [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
my scattered reply (Score:1)
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:
Krang
======
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
Re: (Score:2)
Catalyst and PAR (Score:1)
Catalyst has some builtin PAR support. [cpan.org]
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
packagekeyword and subclass a parent withuse baseor pushing onto@ISAdoes not mean we can never add a little syntactic sugar to make that code clearer and more convenient.Continuity! (Score:1)
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.