Re: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

There are a few other frameworks, new and historical. This is part of why no one will ever maintain a current webframework FAQ for Perl. It’s too much work and I daresay there is no single JAPH who has the breadth of expertise to do it easily.
I don’t think Dancer(2) is considered unstable by anyone and Mojo would be debatable.
Catalyst is fine for any size project if you know what you’re doing, it’s just a deep framework that is harder to learn.
There is nothing wrong with CGI for tiny projects or expert users per se but it’s not worth learning if you don’t already know it. All Perl webframeworks RFC:SHOULD use PSGI as their interface layer. CGI can be used through PSGI.
There are deeper concerns than façade and basic structure in frameworks; testing, support, community, longevity, bug density, extended documentation, adoption. I’ve seen few Dancer jobs. I see lots of Catalyst and Mojo jobs. Catalyst and Mojo are both easy to test; I have not enough experience with Dancer to comment on its testing.
Deployment concerns are probably the biggest hurdle for devs. It’s the only reason PHP ate Perl’s lunch in the end. A deployment wiki/guide would be a bigger help than a framework page.
Views and Models are not hardwired in (most) frameworks. Even comparing Catalyst against Catalyst could be a 9x9 grid with combinations of 5 or more view layers and 5 or more model layers.

I applaud anyone who attempts to do what you are suggesting. I warn those who ask, “Why the hecking heck isn’t there already such a guide?” that such a guide would have to be simplistic, and minimalistic, to be maintainable.

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 hippo (Archbishop) on Feb 27, 2017 at 09:27 UTC
All Perl webframeworks RFC:SHOULD use PSGI as their interface layer. CGI can be used through PSGI. Except that as discussed a few weeks back it is very slow with PSGI in a non-persistent environment. Too slow for me to be useful but YMMV.	[reply]
Re^3: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Feb 27, 2017 at 13:32 UTC
Yes. Sorry, I should have mentioned. But all webframeworks are slow without a persistent layer and CGI is probably going to be among the fastest. And in any large application, all of them will be too slow for practical use and some, like a big Catalyst app, completely unusable.	[reply]
Re^3: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives by Anonymous Monk on Feb 28, 2017 at 00:47 UTC
Except that as discussed a few weeks back it is very slow with PSGI in a non-persistent environment. Too slow for me to be useful but YMMV. You're saying CGI program running under PSGI is SLOER than same program running under CGI? Sounds like a broken program, see CGI to mod_perl Porting. mod_perl Coding guidelines	[reply]