> And those other languages probably also have choices > between templating systems or ORMs. The thing that > actually makes Rails so successful is the fact that > it has everything already sorted out. You can't really > learn Rails without using ActiveRecord for instance. > > If the newbie gives up on Catalyst and ends up learning > another language it won't be because of having to learn > TT and DBIx::Class along with Catalyst. It would probably > because he's a Windows user and things don't work as > smoothly as the alternatives. Most people don't really > want nor need the flexibility provided by Catalyst, > they'd rather have a pre-packaged framework that just > works. > > This whole conversation boils down to what are the aims > of Catalyst as an open source project. In order to gain > popularity there should be less focus on flexibility and > more focus on "achievability". However, in most serious > developments this won't help much, it'd just be a lot of > work and the only benefits might be a dozen new users - > there would be no real benefits for the existing users and, > most importantly, for the core devs.
I think it is possible to achieve both flexibilty and achieveability in the same framework. Catalyst can be "a pre-packaged framework that just works" with a low cost of entry while still providing flexbility to advanced users needing more power. _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
