in reply to Re: Embeded Perl
in thread Code Critique

It seems that one question (and its answer) is missing in PLP FAQ. Why it is better than alternatives (HTML::Mason, HTML::Embperl, etc)? :)

--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Embeded Perl
by Juerd (Abbot) on Dec 20, 2001 at 03:17 UTC
    That question isn't in there because I don't know if it's "better" or not. It depends on your definition of "good" anyway.

    2;0 juerd@ouranos:~$ perl -e'undef christmas'
Segmentation fault
2;139 juerd@ouranos:~$

    [download]

[reply]
[d/l]
      I agree that it was not a good question. Anyway I just intersted what was your motivation to "reinvent the wheel". You know it makes sense only if you produce better wheel. I suppose there were some things you didn't like in alternatives and your solution was supposed to be "better" in them. "better" at least in your understanding.

      --
      Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)

[reply]
        PLP was made because I didn't like the syntax of the existing web Perl embedders.
        From http://plp.juerd.nl/:
        There is no need to learn a complete language and you won't have to know an object model.

        That means any perl coder can go right ahead, even if he or she refuses to read documentation. In the upcoming version, this is even more so.
        http://plp.juerd.nl/tutorial.plp 

        2;0 juerd@ouranos:~$ perl -e'undef christmas'
Segmentation fault
2;139 juerd@ouranos:~$

        [download]

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom