Re: What's your reaction to "Reaction?"

My general rule of thumb is that the usefulness of frameworks is inversely proportional to the complexity of the application you're building. If you're making a pretty generic data entry and reporting app for a small base of users, a framework will probably be a great boon to you. If you're building something that will require a lot of unusual web app behaviors, or need to scale very large, you will probably find yourself cursing any large framework you chose and looking for ways around it.

Comment on Re: What's your reaction to "Reaction?"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by stonecolddevin (Parson) on Dec 18, 2008 at 20:33 UTC
Inversely proportional? Yea, maybe if you're using Rails :-) That's kind of the point of Catalyst, is to stay out of the way but provide you a ton of leverage when you have a large scale web application that you're putting together and you need all kinds of flexibility. Most likely if it's that big of a web application, it's going to have some sort of effect (positive) on Catalyst's core code and will be integrated one way or another. Or at least provided as a set of nifty plugins/CatalystX:: modules :-) meh.	[reply]
Re^3: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by perrin (Chancellor) on Dec 18, 2008 at 23:13 UTC
Good luck with that. My experience is that the only frameworks that don't get in your way on a complex project are the ones that do almost nothing to help, e.g. CGI::Application. As soon as a framework tries to make things easier by helping out with sessions, databases, page widgets, etc. people who are trying to do something unusual start banging their heads on it. This is not a Catalyst thing or a perl thing but rather a general software thing. Software problems are just not as easy to generalize into frameworks as we would like them to be.	[reply]