Re^2: plack psgi vs mojolicious

>> I'm trying to avoid frameworks like Dancer/Mojolicious

> Mojolicious is very lightweight and flexible. Not sure why you want to reinvent the wheel.

Didn't Mojolicious reinvent every known wheel to avoid CPAN dependencies? ☺

It's not just delicious, it's Mojolicious!

Comment on Re^2: plack psgi vs mojolicious

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: plack psgi vs mojolicious by LanX (Saint) on Feb 09, 2023 at 17:37 UTC
> Didn't Mojolicious reinvent every known wheel to avoid CPAN dependencies? ☺ That's the point, the OP doesn't need to reinvent what SRI already packaged into mojo... Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^3: plack psgi vs mojolicious by erickp (Sexton) on Feb 09, 2023 at 16:53 UTC
yes, looks more and more like the way to go...I might just do that.	[reply]
Re^4: plack psgi vs mojolicious by Anonymous Monk on Feb 09, 2023 at 17:31 UTC
Mojolicious::Lite is absolutely superb for rapidly developing single-file CGI scripts / persistent webapps with embedded templates. With no CPAN dependencies it should definitely be a Perl core module, for the same reason CGI was core for 18 years. Web is still the killer app!	[reply]
Re^5: plack psgi vs mojolicious by marto (Cardinal) on Feb 09, 2023 at 17:41 UTC
"With no CPAN dependencies it should definitely be a Perl core module" The releases are frequent, probably best just to install the latest release rather than bundle as part of the core IMHO.	[reply]
Re^6: plack psgi vs mojolicious by Anonymous Monk on Feb 10, 2023 at 21:55 UTC