I think you are being a bit hard, and perhaps a bit opinionated here, but maybe those things are not serious problems.
CGI.pm actually grew out of the need to handle a whole variety of CGI related tasks, not the least of which originally was from handling. But, like topsy, it grew and now it handles just about any aspect of CGI including generation of HTML, if you want. It is viable to only use parts of it, and many of us do that, or you could, as you suggest, use alternative modules.
They can create a concept mock-up that way, but someone who knows HTML will have to rewrite it from scratch.Really? I use hundreds of forms each month that are done that way. We generally don't do any re-wruiting at all! We can't afford the time or the effort just to satisfy pedants. The HTML is done in Dreamweaver or something similar and when finished it validates with the stabdard w3c.org validator. Why do I need to re-write it?
But we also use 'form components'. Many of our applications use the same basic form sections over and over again. So why re-write them at all? We have currently about 80 form components on our server which are carefully crafted, have the CSS embedded in them and which are well documented so we can ensure that when they are combined into another page they will work seamlessly - and they do.
Our general rule is to give the designer a paper and pencil mock up of what we need the forms to look like. The graphic designers use the CSS to create the overall look of the site and when it is all merged it works well. In fact we have one client who just today turned on a complete re-design of their intranet. Over 45,000 lines of Perl code required not a single change, nor did any of the 187 form based pages on the site. The whole thing was done in CSS and the form components are called out by the wrapper templates in the templating engine. Oh, did I mention that not a single HTML or CSS document was touched by hand? The HTML is edited in Dreamweaver and the styles are handled in StyleMaster.
And why introduce PHP into the mix? We have inherited some sites that use PHP, and we are working as hard as we can to get rid of it! Until recently I did allow one programmer to use PHP for some sites where clients were already using it. But as of a week ago we instituted a no-PHP policy. We get far better operation and much greater uniformity of installations using Perl than we can with PHP. With any PHP stuff we have we usually end up with the sysadmins installing additional libraries or modifying things so it can be made to work. It is far saner for us to have all of our servers basically configured the same way using Perl so we don't have major re-work headaches when we do any upgrading.
The HTML generated by the WYSIWYG applications may not be ideal, but it is servicable, the same goes for CSS code. So lets admit that these systems are in fact workable and they do work in some pretty big systems.
In reply to Re^2: A different approach to CGI
by jdtoronto
in thread A different approach to CGI
by Shenpen
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |