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.
  • Well put, Dave.

    I think there is a sweet spot if you are really to go with simple designs. In that case you find solutions that are all of well-vetted, fairly dependency free, fast and memory-frugal.

    I think CGI::Application,, and HTML::Template would all generally fit here.

    Just because a solution is simple doesn't mean it has to be a compromise or not complete. There was a day when these kind of solutions were referred to as "elegant".

    • I think you're missing my point. There's no one solution that meets everyone's needs.

      Simple is good, but simple is relative to the person and problem. CGI::Application seems a bit too simple for my needs. OTOH, I think Jifty is too much. That doesn't mean either of those solutions is wrong for someone else. I'm sure for some people CGI::Application is just enough glue, and for others Jifty makes their life much easier.

      For me, CGI::Application,, and HTML::Template don't work so great. They work for yo

      • I think you're missing my point. There's no one solution that meets everyone's needs.

        I meant to convey that I do very much agree with this point.

        I just wanted to extended it to clarify that sometimes there are actually sweet spots between choosing features which seem at odds which each other.

        Partly we are acknowledging that people have different underlying philosophies about what a good balance of features is, so what I consider a sweet spot may not seem like one to you.

        This is an important discussion to

        • I don't think we'll ever abandon TIMTOWTDI 100%. However, that doesn't mean we need 20 ways to do everything either. Instead, for each conflicting set of concerns, it'd be ideal to have exactly one good solution.

          For example, in many cases, Moose is (IMO) the absolute best way to do OO in Perl. It's downside is obviously the compile-time hit. If we need another OO solution that's very lightweight, I'd prefer to see just one. Ideally, that one would be Moose-compatible to some degree, like Mouse is.

        • I think it is time to reexamine TIMTOWTDI. It is a complex subject - mixing the technical and the political. If we set aside the political meaning of it - I think the most effective technological course would be something that would work in phases of exploration of new ways of doing something and then concentrating on choosing just one optimal way.
        • This is an important discussion to have now because it seems like lately the Perl community has gotten away from a spirit of TIMTOWTDI to more of "One Right Way" attitude.

          I'd like to see the Perl community adopt an attitude of "Make the default not suck for everyone".