|Perl Monk, Perl Meditation|
I'd probably be the most easy to convince that Catalyst should be replaced with Mojolicious so long as you can provide the valid argument for it. I have yet to see why your method of dispatch is better -- than say chained-dispatch. Or, where your design diverges from Catalyst other than dispatch component. I'd love to see you and the more zealous maintainers of Catalyst hash out ideas on paper. I think what you're really doing is brining in the hype component to Catalyst, which is arguably what it needs most. But, why alienate people that are currently using Catalyst?
Catalyst already has the basic generators, which I don't use, that seem to be the center of your argument on simplicity.. I've always preferred to just cp rather than using generators.
I have a tendency to think Moose is *always* good. I'd love to see why you're making a new modular framework without using it... I think when Cat 6 comes out and finally uses Moose internally many good Moosey things will come.
Mojo::Manual::CodingGuidelines are kind of vague, and certainly aren't unique. Maybe the core of my argument rests in not seeing the problem with Catalyst that you're trying to address. Please convince me -- my ears are open.
I hack for the ladies.