Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 10 Jan 2007, at 17:05, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >> Why would anyone use this instead of CGI.pm? > > If you expect me to justify it you've got the wrong guy Randal :) > > Ovid reckons people use it so I pitched in to try and fix it. The code > is quite nasty in places - but I'll fix it if people like it for > whatever reason. > > Part of my reason for posting is to try and work out whether anyone's > actually using it.
I had tried it for the perceived performance benefits. It's been awhile, so at this point I all recall that I had some strange issues with it, and returned to use CGI.pm, which did not have the issues and worked well enough. I still like the CGI::Simple is lighter weight, but it just didn't work well enough for me. (I'm sorry my memory doesn't recall the exact issues anymore... it may have been related to file uploading.) Mark
