I hardly see a reason to use CGI's HTML generation routines - the output is still hardcoded, so you don't really win a thing over just putting strings in your code. The only possible difference is it automatically produces well formed XHTML. Shrug. If I hardcode my HTML for a small script, I use a heredoc or something. Anything else, I use Template Toolkit II. (Literally everything; I'm starting to use it in command line scripts too.)
If you look around you'll see that there's hardly anything like a consensus that CGI.pm's HTML routines are The Right Way, and in fact some quite highly regarded folks will tell you to first look for another solution.
Just because a module offers some functionality, even if it's a core module, doesn't mean you have to or even should use it. FindBin f.ex is so badly broken I actually find it sort of embarrassing that it's in the core.
Makeshifts last the longest.
In reply to Re^2: Simplicity vs. Doing It Right
by Aristotle
in thread Simplicity vs. Doing It Right
by dws
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |