Re^2: Regular Confuscion

I disagree. It depends on the context of the problem.

It's possible the original author wrote the script this way for a number of reasons including

It's also possible that the script is not a CGI script, or that it is an exceptionally lightweight CGI script.

For the most part, I would use the CGI module myself, but there are times when I wouldn't.

Comment on Re^2: Regular Confuscion

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Regular Confuscion by Joost (Canon) on Feb 01, 2007 at 10:55 UTC
Sure there are situations where you might not use the CGI module, but Optimizing parameter parsing is not going to give you any significant speedup unless you've got tens of thousands of parameters and hardly do anything with them. URL decoders are not hard to code, except that people seem to forget to implement the full spec. (See for example & vs ; separators) Lack of experience is not a valid reason to keep code that could be replaced with a well-tested core module. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Regular Confuscion
by Joost (Canon) on Feb 01, 2007 at 10:55 UTC

Optimizing parameter parsing is not going to give you any significant speedup unless you've got tens of thousands of parameters and hardly do anything with them.
URL decoders are not hard to code, except that people seem to forget to implement the full spec. (See for example & vs ; separators)
Lack of experience is not a valid reason to keep code that could be replaced with a well-tested core module.

"What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"