With all respect to Dave and the Catalyst team (Catalyst is a great toolkit and I do recommend it), my group runs a stack of more than 80 web sites, getting tens of millions of hits each month, and they all run on the built-in Mason framework with the help of some custom plugins. For applications that are read-heavy rather than write-heavy, I find Mason's simple dispatch intuitive and more appropriate than more complex frameworks like Catalyst. Nor have I found Mason to be particularly limiting for write-heavy applications, although I admit it doesn't provide much help in that direction either.
I think the comparison to PHP is apt, and not necessarily negative. PHP is wildly popular for good reason, despite its problems. Mason is useful in many of the same cases, and for the same reasons (notably, easy to get started and easy to modify templates). MK, thanks for your contribution! I agree it can be confusing when starting any project with new tools, and once a person has mastered the tools they lose that "beginner's mind" that allows them to understand the conceptual challenges that beginners face. If I *ever* get my Webquills redesign off the ground (two scrapped already, third time is the charm, right?), the next thing on my list is to write a series of articles about why I love Mason and how I use it. I hope that series will be particularly useful to beginners. I'll drop a note to the list when I kick that off, for those interested. -- Vince Veselosky Web: http://www.webquills.net Twitter: @veselosky (http://twitter.com/veselosky)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
