- 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.