Noone seemed to mention CGI::Application and HTML::Template. | [reply] |
(This is mostly directed to the OP.)
I think CGI::Application is a great thing to have but I also find it over-recommended. It's how, IMO, most solid web hackers would solve the problem of a big dispatch table with hook points. It's a good way to normalize flow and share plugins and such but if you're going to get your web code organized anyway, go all the way to Catalyst. CGI::Application is either a lot of effort that won't get you over that last hump (the many cool things Cat can do) or it's not much effort that is basically repeating things you already know and understand.
I hope that came out right. It's in the context of the OP: return on effort. I'm not criticizing CGI::App. I think it's a valuable package. I just think it's either on the easy side if you already know CGI programming well or less return on the effort than Cat if you'll need to learn a bunch either way.
As for HTML::Template, I completely understand the purists who opt for it because it's probably the theoretically cleanest View of those available. I personally would never choose it over Template::Toolkit. And that's another effort to gain ratio. HTML::Template is a snap to use. TT2 is a mini-language so it's a lot of effort. It's been worth it to me.
One of the ways you can tell if a more difficult package (or programming language for that matter) is worth the effort is to look at the community. TT2 and Cat and DBIC have active communities where answers are readily available on IRC, mailing lists, wiki, blog posts, or here at PM. If a package isn't worth the trouble, it won't be able to attract and retain a dedicated base.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
