comment on

All it did was irritate me

How? Did it make your eyes water? Your scalp itch? A burning sensation in an area not discussed amongst mixed company?

Look, I'm not much into promoting or even believing in any silver bullet theories but I must say CGI::Application has been a boon to my development. As another poster stated, it started me thinking about my webapps as state machines and that has been a good thing. Maybe your apps don't need that, if you have a simple CGI that does one thing only - then probably not. But once you get into a multi-step, multi-form, webapp, CGI::Application is definetly a plus.

If you have the time or inclination, please write up what irritated you. Give us examples of how your approach is better ... are you sure it wasn't the small learing curve for CGI::Application that just got in the way of you delivering the product.

-derby

In reply to Re: Re: Why CGI::Application? by derby
in thread Why CGI::Application? by sdbarker

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


more useful options
	PerlMonks