Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: rBuild hack

by Intrepid (Deacon)
on Feb 27, 2001 at 01:32 UTC ( #60946=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: rBuild hack
in thread rBuild hack

I am honored, Merlyn. As to the matter of CGI.pm, I wasn't actually surprised you mentioned that .. I kind of anticipated that you might bring that up. Your point about CGI.pm's protection with incoming parameters is a good one.

I'll admit that while I was writing this application it never occurred to me to use CGI.pm, and that alone shows how much I am fundamentally on a different page from a lot of senior perl hackers (when it comes to writing CGI applications). I think that state of affairs is a consequence of the happenstance that I learned HTML first, and Perl later, and learned HTML rather well (so that all the HTML I do tends to be done in a plain text editor, for instance). It's a matter of what approach and tools fit one's self most naturally. To me learning the CGI.pm methods feels like redundant effort -- to make a line break or a blockquote I have to use some CGI.pm syntax rather than what I can do without thought in HTML -- and that's clumsy enough to slow me down and frustrate me. But you've probably heard others before me say similar things.

Regards,
Soren

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re: rBuild hack
by tye (Sage) on Feb 27, 2001 at 01:46 UTC

    Using CGI.pm to generate HTML has little benefit. Using CGI.pm to process CGI parameters, especially forms, is nearly a must if you want good portability and security.

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
      Using CGI to generate HTML has little benefit? You are never missing an end tag or improperly nesting. Your Perl code is exceptionally clean and easy to follow. Oh, and it's quicker to type up and less likely to have typo interference. Feel free to do things the hard way, but I count these as benefits. :)

        It has advantages and disadvantages. It catches some typos and forces closing of tags. It makes some things easier w/ less typing. It can also make things harder w/ more typing.

        But for most people, most HTML is not CGI-generated so learning a separate way to write HTML could easily not be worth it.

        My point was to distinguish using CGI.pm to generate HTML from using CGI.pm to process CGI parameters. The former is, to a great extent, a matter of personal taste or how your project fits in elsewhere, etc. Processing CGI parameters without using CGI.pm is almost always a mistake, and is usually a pretty big mistake.

        I say feel free to generate your HTML with CGI.pm, a templating system, or by hand. But you won't get any sympathy from me if you parse CGI parameters with anything other than CGI.pm (until a worthy replacement comes along).

        In the node I was responding to, the author was justifying not using CGI.pm by talking about generating HTML. To me that means he missed the point.

                - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://60946]
help
Chatterbox?
and the rats come out to play...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (3)
As of 2018-04-27 01:45 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?