in reply to CGI::Tiny versus undefined parameter/form field

Before suggesting them, please understand I am not interested in Dancer, Dancer2, Mojolicious, Catalyst, Moose, etc. or other heavy-duty frameworks

I totally understand that - I am exactly the same...

However, the wisdom of the Monastery suggested a framework or templating system to me. Like you, I discounted Dancer2, Mojolicious and the like but I am VERY pleased I took the time to try out Template. It didn't take long to make it work better than any of the CGI::* modules as it is not a huge learning curve.

Adopting Template has been revolutionary for me. I now hate maintaining the web code I wrote previously. Separating the logic from the display makes maintenance so much easier, debugging a lot simpler and development quicker. There's no way I would go back and I strongly suggest you give it a go. There is plenty of support her in the Monastery to help you master Template or an alternative templating system.

  • Comment on Re: CGI::Tiny versus undefined parameter/form field

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: CGI::Tiny versus undefined parameter/form field
by Polyglot (Chaplain) on Dec 12, 2022 at 03:17 UTC
    Honestly, if I have this much trouble adopting CGI::Tiny, Template would be beyond my ability. I have never understood OOP stuff. Abstractions like references and pointers and classes, etc. are over my head. I have to accept the reality that my mind is not gifted in those areas, and I work with what I have. I have tried. Lots of times. I've even read those chapters in the O'Reilly Perl guide more than once.

    Okay, so, downvote me to oblivion. In any case, Tiny's not working out. Either something is wrong with it or its installation on my system, or I don't know how to implement it--which implies, too, that the example code for it is flawed or incomplete, because I attempted to follow that exactly. I do wonder if anyone here is actually using it.

    Blessings,

    ~Polyglot~