Re^2: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

[iaw4]

I had a mojolicious website that was built 2 years ago and was running...and then it no longer ran. I needed to hire an expert to figure out what was wrong. wasn't a big deal for the expert, but not possible to find out for a non-expert. (CGI.pm never broke. I presume plack/psgi don't either. All low-level enough. I presume Dancer, Mojo, and Catalyst need some tending...)

Can I renew my call for a basic question: why Dancer2 over Mojo? why Mojo over Dancer2?

(Incidentally, are any web frameworks planned to work with perl6?)

/iaw

[1nickt]

Boring. If not Trolling.

I think it's unlikely that you'll get any useful answer to this question. The chances of anyone being familiar *enough* with both frameworks to say "this one is better" with authority are very slim.

Most people try one or the other, or both, or others, for simple experimenting, get turned on or get turned off, and then stick with one. Only thereafter do they begin to become competent enough to offer any really useful advice. So you'd have to get the apples report from the apple seller and the orange report ...

If you want useful information instead of asking for something no one can tell, ask people to say what they like and don't like about what they use. Then parse the info, make some choices, try some things ... You are asking for someone to save you the work of deciding whether you like scrambled or fried eggs.

And for the love of all things Holy please don't conflate "Perl6" in this discussion. It's a different language and you might as well ask about frameworks in any one of dozens of them: the answer, if there is one, will not be relevant in the slightest.

[iaw4]

wasn't trolling at all. on the contrary---I need to figure out what I want to do myself.

yes, you may be quite right that there are too few users of both frameworks to give good comparisons.

basically, you are suggesting that novices flip a coin. it does not seem like a very efficient way to choose between D2 and M, but it is then unavoidable. I am not blaming you (or anyone). on the contrary. (thanks for the advice.) I am just stating what the choice background information is.

PS: in learning one or the other framework, it would be useful to know whether there is a perl6 plan for the long-distant (10-year) future. there is a reason why it is still called perl. a plan here would have been a plus biasing the coin for one or the other framework in my mind. after all, I am starting a new project, so I may as well consider not just stability but future paths, too.

PS Update: http://perl6maven.com/bailador seems to be trying to mimick Dancer.

[trippledubs]

They all do the same thing, but I don't think that captures the truth. Here are some interviews with the developers themselves. They all seem excited for and happy about perl6. And I also want to say for the record that I think all the frameworks are great, just that Mojo is greater. The way it starts out with a one page app and then grows, support for testing, model agnostic, javascript agnostic, template helpers, asset packs that support things like JS combining and minification, it feels like SRI knew your pains and went out of his way to make your life better.

Catalyst I felt like starts out huge and forces a great, hard learned, best practicey and mature SW Engineering Philosophy on you. Who wants that baggage? Not me. I did use Dancer, and I even found my old node where that was my opinion: Re: Pro/Cons Catalyst/Mojolicous/Dancer. But, my opinion changed, mostly because when your apps get larger, in Dancer they have nowhere to go. Plus Dancer2 came out and it is like.. what is going on here. Without Catalyst there would be no Mojolicious and they all are better than what came before.

[Your Mother]

¿Bailador? Claro que sí!

[1nickt]

there is a reason why it is still called perl

See Best of the Beatles.