Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
When I first started using CGI.pm I had the same thought as you... templating issues aside (you should use a template system of some sort for large blocks of HTML) what's the big difference between print h1("Hello World"); and print "<h1>Hello World</h1>";. I mean, really.
But as time passed the light went on and I realized that CGI.pm really does make life easier in HTML generation... not for big blocks of static HTML but for all those dynamic things that you're probably using a CGI for in the first place. For example, think about writing the HTML for a form with checkboxes where some of the checkboxes are pre-checked. Which checkboxes are checked depends on logic within your CGI. If you try to do this using print statements and non-CGI.pm generated HTML you're going to spend an enormous amount of time dealing with if/then statements to determine if "CHECKED" should appear in your static HTML or not. Using CGI.pm it's as simple as passing references to a couple of arrays and you're done. Piece of cake. CGI.pm also makes auto-generation of table tags a total breeze. In short my vote is:
Gary Blackburn In reply to Re: Should One Use CGI.pm to Generate HTML?
by Trimbach
|
|