in reply to Re: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives
in thread UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

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.
  • Comment on Re^2: UP-TO-DATE Comparison of CGI Alternatives

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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.

    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.