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

Re: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

by Your Mother (Bishop)
on Feb 27, 2017 at 00:34 UTC ( #1182911=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

  • There are a few other frameworks, new and historical. This is part of why no one will ever maintain a current webframework FAQ for Perl. Itís too much work and I daresay there is no single JAPH who has the breadth of expertise to do it easily.
  • I donít think Dancer(2) is considered unstable by anyone and Mojo would be debatable.
  • Catalyst is fine for any size project if you know what youíre doing, itís just a deep framework that is harder to learn.
  • There is nothing wrong with CGI for tiny projects or expert users per se but itís not worth learning if you donít already know it. All Perl webframeworks RFC:SHOULD use PSGI as their interface layer. CGI can be used through PSGI.
  • There are deeper concerns than faÁade and basic structure in frameworks; testing, support, community, longevity, bug density, extended documentation, adoption. Iíve seen few Dancer jobs. I see lots of Catalyst and Mojo jobs. Catalyst and Mojo are both easy to test; I have not enough experience with Dancer to comment on its testing.
  • Deployment concerns are probably the biggest hurdle for devs. Itís the only reason PHP ate Perlís lunch in the end. A deployment wiki/guide would be a bigger help than a framework page.
  • Views and Models are not hardwired in (most) frameworks. Even comparing Catalyst against Catalyst could be a 9x9 grid with combinations of 5 or more view layers and 5 or more model layers.

I applaud anyone who attempts to do what you are suggesting. I warn those who ask, ďWhy the hecking heck isnít there already such a guide?Ē that such a guide would have to be simplistic, and minimalistic, to be maintainable.

  • Comment on Re: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives
by hippo (Canon) on Feb 27, 2017 at 09:27 UTC
    All Perl webframeworks RFC:SHOULD use PSGI as their interface layer. CGI can be used through PSGI.

    Except that as discussed a few weeks back it is very slow with PSGI in a non-persistent environment. Too slow for me to be useful but YMMV.

      Yes. Sorry, I should have mentioned. But all webframeworks are slow without a persistent layer and CGI is probably going to be among the fastest. And in any large application, all of them will be too slow for practical use and some, like a big Catalyst app, completely unusable.

      Except that as discussed a few weeks back it is very slow with PSGI in a non-persistent environment. Too slow for me to be useful but YMMV.

      You're saying CGI program running under PSGI is SLOER than same program running under CGI?

      Sounds like a broken program, see CGI to mod_perl Porting. mod_perl Coding guidelines

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1182911]
help
Chatterbox?
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (4)
As of 2018-06-21 01:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Should cpanminus be part of the standard Perl release?



    Results (117 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?