It's important to know that if you reimplement a publicly available solution which has lots of support from the community, you are taking a pass on all of that support.
The downside of reinventing wheels when you don't know what's out there is that you could be duplicating work and doing a worse job of it. Even if you duplicate what you know about, you're still doing things a new and different way that people will be slower to help you develop. That's because they're all busy enough learning, using, and helping people with the existing, popular tool sets.
If your solution is good enough that it overcomes these obstacles, that's great. Expecting it to be warmly accepted over and above the established alternatives without showing people why it's better is a bit presumptuous.
If you can show us how great your system is, but it takes lots of examples, then perhaps a tutorial, Perl.com or use.Perl.org article, a book, or a website showing us how to use it and why it is worth learning despite extant alternatives, then you'd probably get much better traction.
This may very well fit your needs better than any of the existing solutions. You've not said why it does, though. You also seem to be implying it will meet the needs of others better than the existing solutions, and again we don't see why.
As a disclaimer, I'll say that I, personally, use a home-grown application framework quite regularly. I don't ask other people to help with it or to learn it in favor of more general and better documented frameworks, though. There are reasons to use standard tools, and there are at times exceptions. There is never an exception without some trade-offs, though.
In reply to Re: more bracket chaos
by mr_mischief
in thread more bracket chaos
by simonodell
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |