Dan Horne wrote: >> From: Michael Peters >> >> While I agree that having a nice name is good for a framework, I'm >> doubtful >> about using it as the name of a perl module. C::A isn't really a framework >> in >> the sense that Maypole, Catalyst, Jifty, C::A::F, etc are. >> >> > > Hi Michael > > But isn't C::A more than just a module? It's even compared to Catalyst on > the wiki: > > http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/cgi-bin/cgi-app/index.cgi?CatalystCompared > > Although, as it comes, it may not be as big as Catalyst but it extends via > plugins just as Catalyst does. We can use whatever templating solution we > wish, and any ORM if we desire. I don't see C::A being too far behind the > higher profile alternatives. > > A question on this thread basically asked if C::A is to help us get our job > done, or whether it is designed to compete with Catalyst, Ruby on Rails et > al. Well, I use C::A for myself - i.e. to get the job done, and I prefer > using it more than any other web dev tool/framework/module (or however you > want to classify it). > > But as a freelancer, I also have to win the job I want to get done. First, I > have fess up to using Perl - which is often seen as Web .01 by the customer. > Then I say I use CGI::Appication, and "CGI" has a bad ring to many > customers' ears, as people have noted. If I can start chucking in words like > MVC, Ajax, ORM etc and throw out words like CGI, then my coding job won't > change, but my sales job will be a lot easier! > > Dan > > > Dan I couldn't agree more... While talking with colleagues, which are also heavily involved with WebApps development (in other programming languages, too) they do understand the benefits of C::A even compared with existing technologies with fancier names and we share the opinion that it deserves a better name (just for the marketing, which does not necessarily mean do more things for the marketing). It's not just C::A anymore, but a whole set of plugin/modules aroung C::A now, with specific purpose and freedom and a clear learning curve and benefits to use them, so for me it is also more than just a module. IMHO, it might not be a framework as Catalyst and Rails are nowadays, but it clearly is a framework as a framework is defined in computer software engineering terms.
Giannis --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
