Prologue: I'm your target audience. I like CGI.pm quite a bit and have written a couple thousand scripts, production and personal, with it at several jobs including Amazon.com.
I also love the (can't call them new at this point, Catalyst is 13 years old) frameworks and raw Plack/PSGI but I use CGI.pm (::Pretty) now and then for the odd test or to generation a little boilerplate. Has nothing to do with fad or some imagined new:old dichotomy. I do what I want. CGI is monolithic and has some punching power in its weight class because of it but it's inferior to modern practices and tools on most levels, especially as a calling card. I agree that CGI.pm should not be removing features.
That said, your proposal contains some unflattering ironies and inaccuracies and boils down to anonymously insulting and cajoling others into doing what you have the power to do. I agree with your basic premise but still downvoted you for the presentation and "volunteering" others.
CGI.pm isn't core anymore. It's never going back in. Apache's market share is on a strong downward trend. Nginx is the opposite and the only webserver that is. If these trends hold, nginx will be the most popular and widely used server in a few more years. Nginx doesn't even support CGI.
Being out of the core means there is no reason at all not to fork CGI.pm at whatever version you feel is backwards stable and port fixes going forward. I'd help patch and such a project if were on github and run in a community positive, feud free fashion. On that note, I submitted a modernization fix to LEEJO and it was accepted and applied instantly.
Epilogue: Anonymous Monks have no "we." Use your name or say "I."
In reply to Re: Review of CGI::Alternatives
by Your Mother
in thread Review of CGI::Alternatives
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |