From: "Mark Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Some ask "Why bother with vanilla CGI anymore?"
I agree. The frameworks seem like the typical good idea that turns
into a nightmare because of the "devils in the details." I'm not
familiar with all of them. (I'm thinking of Catalyst, primarily.).
It's one thing to see a pattern of activity. But, by the time the
framework accommodates all the exceptions, it's worse than the illness
it sought to cure. There's a steeper learning curve for Catalyst than
there is for ordinary CGI (or, a helper like C::A). I don't see how
that would ever be repaid over time by not having to do things like
calling the template output routine.
Mark
Well, the learning curve for Catalyst is very steap because the framework is
fast developing, and the documentation is not very good (in my opinion).
Otherwise, learning strictly to use Catalyst is not very complicated, but
right when a beginner started the Catalyst adventure, he also enters in the
jungle of DBIx::Class, Template-Toolkit, Config::Any, HTML::FormFu, even
Moose, and when you meet so many future friends at once, you use to forget
their names until you got used with them one by one.
You can use Catalyst even without using the modules I told about above, but
they are very helpful.
Octavian
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
