Very good points Michael. My response to some of them below -- On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Michael Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/18/2009 09:33 AM, P Kishor wrote: >> >> But, now that we are done >> comparing our overweight weight to a morbidly obese weight, how about >> CGI::App on its own? To my completely uninformed mind, loading 40,000+ >> lines to create a small web page sounds like a lot... and, that >> doesn't even include the web server and the Perl interpreter! > > But that's not what you tested. You tested Titanium which is not CGI::App. > It's an opinionated framework based on CGI::App and it's plugins. If you > just want to create something that makes "small web pages" then just load > CGI::App and it's dependencies.
Actually, I did not test Titanium (I only invoked it as an example). I tested my own application that is cobbled together with the various bits and bobs of CGI::App and various plugins. > > Also, let's look at those numbers: > > DBI - 7824 > CGI::Simple - 3900 > > That's 1/4 of all those lines just right there. And if you're going to use a > database you need DBI. And if you're going to make a web app you need a CGI > interface module (like CGI.pm or CGI::Simple) so I don't see a way to remove > those. > I guess that is what I was trying to get at... one of the things that many Perl modules (and CGI::App as well) make a big deal about is how simple scripts are once you use those modules... for example, the oft quoted example of WebApp.pm and instance script being only a couple of lines. Well, in reality, all the plumbing is still there, just under a carpet. > Also, you're counting just raw lines which means you're counting comments > and whitespace (which penalizes modules which are well commented). I'm not > saying your criticism isn't valid, I'm just saying that your data is too > flawed to support that criticism :) Yes, my data are too flawed, but the criticism is still valid. But, instead of kvetching in the wind, I will actually try an experiment. I will remove all the comments from the modules that I am using (call them the "production versions," analogous to the packed/minified Javascript packages floating around), and even try to squish them into one file. I am curious as to what I end up with. Nevertheless, thanks for indulging with me in this argument. Your points are very valid. > > -- > Michael Peters > Plus Three, LP > > ##### 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/ ## > ## ## > ################################################################ > > -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science ======================================================================= Sent from Madison, WI, United States ##### 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/ ## ## ## ################################################################
