in reply to Re: Re: CGI Benchmarks
in thread CGI Benchmarks

You have a point there. The CGI.pm version does look a lot cleaner. For table generation, also, I would probably look into the module in more depth. However, I disagree with the point about debugging. I find that errors in printing the HTML are almost always readily visible. If an attribute isn't correct, you will instantly notice that that header isn't centered, or whatever. A simple view source will generally pinpoint the problem.

When's the last time you used duct tape on a duct? --Larry Wall

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: CGI Benchmarks
by AgentM (Curate) on Jan 24, 2001 at 09:29 UTC
    But using CGI, it's very unlikely that you'll have ANY broken tags. Anyway, you're right about the debugging. First, I would check what's wrong with the HTML source, THEN go to the perl and isolate the problem. Of course, if you can eliminate broken tags AND misspelled attributes, then you're debugging woes are kept to a minimum. CGI gives you the benefit of both.
    AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the comments made by AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.