On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Lyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Octavian Rasnita wrote: >> >> But in that case you probably shouldn't be interested in using >> Template-Toolkit nor Catalyst, because they also have their overhead, and >> the other higher level modules used for accessing the database have their >> overhead also and the best solution would be DBI. > > You've literally just spelled out why my preference is CGI::Application, > HTML::Template and DBI. Not knocking Catalyst, I could see it's benefits. > > I guess it all depends on the what kind of websites you are working on, or > what your customers expect. >
Very true, which is why I use Catalyst and DBIC. I've had Catalyst+DBIC serving 10+ million hits a day. They expected fast performance, so I built and scaled accordingly. It worked beautiful. I've worked on some other high availability sites on Catalyst, with high traffic. Never had much of a problem getting good, quality results that have low deviation on performance. In addition, Catalyst being so flexible allows us to put in a great number of things with very little developer time -- hardware is much cheaper than a developer, and when you get to high end numbers that really adds up. If your developers cost less than your servers, raw DBI is probably a quite adequate solution. Glad someone is doing it, because I wouldn't touch those jobs. _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
