On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:29:33PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: > I think we're stuck with CGI::Application: > > 1. Technically accurate Perl module name.
A project name does not mean the MODULE has to change it's name. Cgiapp is more thna just the module, it's the community, the plugins, and the extended documentation. Most of your arguments focus on just the module. A project name lets the whole shebang get some press, and gets away from the much-maligned "CGI" element. I have no idea what _libraries_ other projects use, but I'm willing to bet they aren't 100% identical to the project name. > 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". I have to disagree with your conclusions. Buzzwords exist for a reason: They sound impressive, and they convey (some) information. I have people stop listening at "CGI", they identify this as inefficient technology (partially because PHP and Java pushers pushed that meme 5 years ago). I'm quite happy saying that I'm using a proven, stable, flexible Perl module. As soon as I utter "CGI" though, I've lost a lot of credibility in their eyes. Face it: CGI::App has limited credibility. Some of us love it, but Ruby, Catalyst, and others are doing much better, and much faster, when it comes to gaining credibility. CGI::App fares well technologically (with the right plugins) so far as I can tell from Perrin's reviews, so success must come from other changes. -- SwiftOne / Brett Sanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
