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:1)
Apparently people can't install modules if they have dependencies, but they can install modules if they don't have dependencies. I don't really get it.
But anyway, reinvention aside, Mojolicious::Lite is basically the same tired CGI.pm ideas repackaged as new syntax. Great for blogging (like so many ideas from the Ruby community), but not so great for solving problems web application developers actually have.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
There's a big difference between "installing" a module and unpacking it in a directory. Almost anyone can do the latter.
And I can't agree with your comments comparing Mojolicious::Lite to CGI.pm. I'm very familiar with the latter module and it doesn't, out of the box, support this:
CGI.pm is pretty much for reading Web data, playing with cookies and building HTML. It's not for dispatching. Oh, and one thing I like about Mojolicious and don't like about Catalyst:
People who want to learn Web programming and maybe learn a bit of Perl may very well Mojolicious::Lite a fantastic starting point. As for whether or not it solves larger problems, I can't say as I don't know enough about its capabilities, but I'm very surprised at some of the harsh reactions against it.
Reply to This
Parent