Re: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

I've done one web project in the last 10 years, and I chose Dancer2, simply because I know (not directly) some of the core developers, and the IRC channel gets fast results.

I don't know whether Mojolicious is better or worse for changes that affect your projects, but I did dabble there, and it looks pretty similar, and as effective.

Out of curiosity, you spoke of a couple other languages. Mind pointing out what the de-facto standards there are?

Comment on Re: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives by Anonymous Monk on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
I think Mojo is better than Dancer simply because it is more lightweight and has less dependencies than Dancer. And let's face it, the fact that Dancer has to have a separate 2.0 interface only goes to show that it was not planned as well as Mojo.	[reply]
Re^3: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
I actually agree with you about which is better but not your reasoning. Dependencies, if stable, are not an automatic negative and Mojo makes some opinionated choices with which I disagree; though don't argue it's the developers' purvue. E.g., Mojo::DOM should not be in Mojolicious. It is useful on its own and would be exactly the same overhead as a dependency. Mojo has 100ish code modules in it. This means it's not necessarily more stable than a package of, say, 30ish with 20 dependencies. I recognize differing versions come into play here but not as a hard rule.	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.