I think for a new programmer with some understanding of HTTP, Mojolicious is probably easier to learn, definitely easier to write, and an altogether superior toolkit to any of the F?CGI:: family. I like CGI.pm for what it is and I wrote thousands of scripts/CGIs with it. I would never use it again except for certain kinds of testing and quick HTML templating.

Thank you. I've read good things about Dancer as well. From your experience, Would you say that Mojolicious is the best framework for FCGI?

As an aside, I am not necessary a new programmer, just rusty. I developed PHP years ago, then moved into other areas of tech. Outside of a little bit of python, lua, and javascript, I've done very little programming for nearly 8 years. I recently had project that Perl was the perfect fit, and I became hooked. I never realised the vastness of cpan and 'usefulliness' of Perl, so its made diving back into programming fun again. This particular board has been useful for when I am stuck, and when I am very stuck, the responses have been very quick!

Lots of devs like Dancer2. I am not one of them. :P My expertise is Catalyst but it’s a terrible thing to recommend to someone just starting out and I’m using it less frequently all the time. Mojolicious::Lite is super easy to jump into. As far as FastCGI, I would recommend against it, pretty strongly. It has no benefit over other application persistence layers, far, far fewer features, and depending on deployment, it has some drawbacks; like requiring a webserver restart to pick up new code, or making forking impossible/tricky. I only use uWSGI when I have the ability to choose for myself. I am using Catalyst over FCGI and a custom app server + CGI.pm at work but not by choice. I also strongly recommend nginx over apache at this point in the game.