Thank you all. These are (mostly) intelligent answers!
I probably should have specified CMS instead of framework. I was kind of looking at them as being hand-in-hand because _every_ framework has a purpose of handling _some_ type of content. Being extensible and flexible makes it a framework in my opinion. But I do see the distinction between, say, Catalyst and Galileo.
However. I stand by my assessment. With both Drupal and Wordpress they do "just work" out of the box for the most part. As long as the host has PHP5 and MySQL it'll load right up. I've deployed 4 installations this month with Drupal and 2 with Wordpress and had no goofiness to deal with.
Under Perl systems I've had to manually install modules for hours just to get "Hello, World!" on the bloody screen. It shouldn't be that way.
Under Drupal 8 there's even a feature to install your modules via the interface. Paste the link and it does the job for you. Have had it fail on me once.
The bottom line is that I personally think the success of the Perl language rests upon the ability to provide an entry into the blogging, forum, cms, social world currently occupied almost entirely by php.
I like the idea of PHP but essentially it does the same thing as Mason et al by letting you jump back and forth between PHP and HTML code.
As best I can figure, the core of Drupal is very straightforward. The way they put it together isn't bad either.
But I think it could be faster, a tad more stable, and for us Perl guys, more customizable.
Just my 2 cents.
And yes, I might go write one.
in reply to Re: Perl: Why you no modern web framework?
in thread Perl: Why you no modern web framework?