On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Lyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark Fuller wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Paul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> If the website for it doesn't have some >>> kind of demo and in fact uses mostly PHP code, what good is the lib. >>> >> >> I understand your point and it has some validity. But, that's not what >> Lyle said, and I was addressing. He said he "loathes Perl sites using >> PHP." That's significantly broader than a library site (for web >> development) using PHP. >> > > Look at www.yabbforum.com, it's a Perl forum script, but it's site is in > php. I've contacted them about this before, to be told I wasn't the > first to bring it up. Based on the fact that most people wouldn't even > bother to contact, I think it's probably putting a lot of people off. > Yes php is currently more popular than Perl, people actively choosing > Perl alternatives likely do so because they don't want to use php or > asp. Having this Perl alternative run php on it's site simply wouldn't > give the right message. > >> However, the dilemma is much the same. A goal to showcase C::A will be >> detrimental to the goals David enumerated at the beginning of this >> topic. There's no way you can realistically create a wiki with the >> features that mediaWiki has. Nor a forum with the features of phpbb >> (if you want to capitalize on the attributes of discussion >> participants to reduce wiki spam.). The fewer the features (and >> community), the fewer people participating as moderators, less robust >> anti-spam techniques, etc. >> > > Why would the cgi-app site need to use all the features of MediaWiki?
Precisely. By having a chance to create something from scratch, it can be built to be lean and spare, with all that is required and nothing that isn't. MediaWiki has a different audience, different needs. I love minimalist design, and that is why I really like pagetext.org that uses WikiCreole. CGI::App::Plugin::Wiki should really be just that... a plugin with a very minimal templating system allowing one to use as little or customize as much as needed. > It's a small site and small community. We don't need lots of anti-spam > features, just a good one that works. MojoMojo isn't feature rich, but > serves the Catalyst site well. > >> I agree that it would be more consistent to have a wiki (and forum) >> written with C::A. But, Lyle said he'd settle for just Perl. So, we've >> already established a level of pragmatism. >> > > I'm a Perl advocate and I don't hide it :D > >> Personally, I don't think it undermines C::A's credibility that >> there's not a widespread wiki or forum written in it. Not using the >> best tools just because it would admit reality (that the best tools >> aren't written using C::A) shouldn't be threatening. It's just >> reality. The question, to me, is whether to use the best tools for the >> job (wiki, forum, etc.). >> > > MojoMojo isn't widespread, but it is a Catalyst Wiki, used on the > Catalyst site. > > > Lyle > > -- Puneet Kishor ##### 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/ ## ## ## ################################################################
