|
in reply to Re: Re: CGI Benchmarks
in thread CGI Benchmarks
You have a point there. The CGI.pm version does look a lot cleaner. For table generation, also, I would probably look into the module in more depth. However, I disagree with the point about debugging. I find that errors in printing the HTML are almost always readily visible. If an attribute isn't correct, you will instantly notice that that header isn't centered, or whatever. A simple view source will generally pinpoint the problem.
When's the last time you used duct tape on a duct? --Larry Wall |
Re: Re: Re: Re: CGI Benchmarks
by AgentM (Curate) on Jan 24, 2001 at 09:29 UTC
|
But using CGI, it's very unlikely that you'll have ANY broken tags. Anyway, you're right about the debugging. First, I would check what's wrong with the HTML source, THEN go to the perl and isolate the problem. Of course, if you can eliminate broken tags AND misspelled attributes, then you're debugging woes are kept to a minimum. CGI gives you the benefit of both.
AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor
Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the
comments made by
AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.
| [reply] |
|
