cgiapp:
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> We need a project name.
I think we're stuck with CGI::Application:
1. Technically accurate Perl module name.
2. Unlikely to get redefined (consider Jesse Erlbaum's excellent point
regarding "LAMP").
3. Evokes and reinforces Perl culture.
4. C::A has been around a while, and has tradition behind it.
5. Lots of people are touched by C::A, and not just Perl hackers.
6. Changing the name on CPAN may not be trivial. What about upgrades?
7. Acceptance by at least one major GNU/Linux distribution (Debian):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache search CGI::Application
libcgi-application-perl - Framework for building reusable web-ap
plications
Likely, lots more. Who's going to engineer the upgrade path?
8. Acceptance by at least one major GNU/Linux web hosting provider
(Hurricane Electric):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ perl -MCGI::Application -e 'print $CGI::Applicat
ion::VERSION, "\n"'
3.1
Likely, lots more. Who's going to engineer the upgrade path?
9. Installed base -- how many C::A scripts are out there? Millions?
Who's going to engineer the upgrade path?
10. Establishing credibility with a new name will take time.
11. Most people using a web site don't care how it's built; they care
whether it works, how responsive it is, how "user friendly" it is,
etc.. Using <buzzname> over CGI::Application provides no benefit
for anyone.
12. I aspire to do freelance work (solo, or with a graphics designer).
For the clients I go after, they have only a passing interest in
the technologies I use; they want to know if I can build what they
want, how much it will cost, and when it will be operational. If
they do ask about the technologies, I'd rather say:
"I used Perl CGI::Application, which is a standard Perl module
that has been around for many years, is well-understood and
widely accepted, and now has lots of plug-ins that will make
the project better, faster, and cheaper",
than:
"I use <buzzname>, which is the latest buzzword-du-joir
Perl web framework".
The former is a "safer buy" and "easier sell".
> One that I can say to my significant other without untangling an acronym.
I am reminded of the story about an engineer trying to explain the bubbles in
carbonated soda to his 3-year old son -- states of matter, aqueous solutions,
super saturation, etc. It's better just to say "they put the bubbles in at the
factory to tickle your nose".
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
