Think about it this way - I, as a business analyst, need to know that there is a standard way of talking to a database in Perl. Otherwise, the language is unsafe, and therefore - unused. DBI is actually a major selling point for Perl in many industries. CGI is another. They are standards. Standards don't mean that TIMTOWDI is dead. It does mean that TIMTOWDI better shut up when the PHB is listening to the presentation!
I will admit, I am not familure with the design behind DBI (haven't had the chance to check out the code), but there is also another standard SQL. Yes, I am aware that there are ways to work with DBI and SQL together... but then we bring in DBM. There are three standards, well, atleast DBI and SQL are standardised to my knowledge, that could present themselves to a table. Each with their purpose, and place of usage.
As per CGI.pm, I personally do not like it. I've worked on some coding with a different interface, and blah, blah, blah, for things I think are slightly more my style. I've looked through the code for CGI.pm, it is pretty tight, however that tightness really removes some usability. (Yes, I know, I will now get about twelve flames saying that CGI.pm is God, and I obviously know nothing because of that). Most of that code appears hackish in nature (refering to CGI.pm of course), and well... that is a whole different discussion.
In reply to Re^2: Death and Return of TIMTOWTDI
by dakedesu
in thread Death and Return of TIMTOWTDI
by dakedesu
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |