Re^2: LWP::Simple vs HTTP::Tiny

Hello Bod (and my even if late, warmest welcome to the monastery!)

Thank you very much indeed - I certainly feel welcomed by many long standing, esteemed Monks. Joining in rather than just observing occasionally is something I should have done a long, long time ago and I strongly wonder why I didn't whilst at the time speculating how much improved by Perl and general coding skills would be had I joined many years ago!

The author...wrote a nice introduction with comparisons too: why HTTP::Tiny

Thank you. I had already read that and it compares HTTP::Tiny to the full blown LWP::UserAgent. I totally understand the need for a smaller HTTP module which LWP::Simple provides.

It was CPAN's choice of HTTP module which confuses me when it has the option of both, it prefers LWP::Simple.

Comment on Re^2: LWP::Simple vs HTTP::Tiny

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: LWP::Simple vs HTTP::Tiny by hippo (Archbishop) on Dec 14, 2020 at 13:59 UTC
I totally understand the need for a smaller HTTP module which LWP::Simple provides. Just in case you were unaware, LWP::Simple is just a wrapper around LWP::UserAgent. The "Simple" refers to the simplified interface only. In using LWP::Simple instead of LWP::UserAgent you are actually consuming more RAM, not less and loading more modules, not fewer. Update: Edited for clarity. 🦛	[reply]
Re^4: LWP::Simple vs HTTP::Tiny by Bod (Parson) on Dec 14, 2020 at 14:20 UTC
Just in case you were unaware... Thank you hippo - I did know that LWP::Simple is a wrapper but I hadn't extrapolated that to understand the implications you have pointed out. Obvious really but easily missed (at least it is by me). I am using HTTP::Tiny for the Raspberry Pi project mainly because this module is core. Having used it for this, I think it will be my first choice when I need simple web access.	[reply]