Re^2: Whats better then CGI.pm?

I haven't looked at the source at CGI.pm

I can tell just by the way you talk about CGI.pm.

And by using it, I was able to eliminate my use of four other modules

Using CGI.pm and mod_perl version 1 module Apache is required in CGI.pm. Using CGI.pm and mod_perl version 2 modules Apache2::Response, Apache2::RequestRec, Apache2::RequestUtil, Apache2::RequestIO, APR::Pool are required in CGI.pm.

I would say CGI.pm is bloated because of the massive amount of redundant coding and the fact that the file size is about 262,144 bytes give or take a few bytes. Perl still has to open and read that file. Others will see the size of the module as a lack of optimization or re-factoring. In both of those cases it proves to me its a bloated code if your not going to use the hole module.

Comment on Re^2: Whats better then CGI.pm?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Whats better then CGI.pm? by halfcountplus (Hermit) on Oct 21, 2010 at 16:26 UTC
Using CGI.pm and mod_perl version 2 modules Apache2::Response, Apache2::RequestRec, Apache2::RequestUtil, Apache2::RequestIO, APR::Pool are required in CGI.pm. In fact, it was APR::Table that was the fat cat in the bunch, but point taken. I would say CGI.pm is bloated because of the massive amount of redundant coding and the fact that the file size is about 262,144 bytes give or take a few bytes. Perl still has to open and read that file. Okay, well I have now glanced at it. Looks to me like most of that is actually comments. Too many comments can be as irritating as too few, but in any case, they are irrelevant to the compiler/interpreter. Further: 260k is smaller than many or most image files, there is no significant overhead here. CGI.pm only needs to be loaded once if configured into apache, so the size of the source file is generally irrelevant. Also I'd repeat that "more code done well will be more efficient than less code done poorly" (which may or may not be true here). Just judging a program on the total mass of the source is not very useful. Again, I think you need to present some concrete examples of what you mean by "redundant" and "bloated". Simply saying "Well I can tell you haven't read the source" is akin to saying "I can't give you any reason, just take my word for it" -- if you cannot demonstrate something in real terms (not vaguaries), how do you expect potential users to take you seriously? Thanks for raising the issue tho, in the future I may make use of CGI::Minimal instead ;P	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Whats better then CGI.pm?
by halfcountplus (Hermit) on Oct 21, 2010 at 16:26 UTC

Using CGI.pm and mod_perl version 2 modules Apache2::Response, Apache2::RequestRec, Apache2::RequestUtil, Apache2::RequestIO, APR::Pool are required in CGI.pm.

In fact, it was APR::Table that was the fat cat in the bunch, but point taken.

I would say CGI.pm is bloated because of the massive amount of redundant coding and the fact that the file size is about 262,144 bytes give or take a few bytes. Perl still has to open and read that file.

Okay, well I have now glanced at it. Looks to me like most of that is actually comments. Too many comments can be as irritating as too few, but in any case, they are irrelevant to the compiler/interpreter. Further:

260k is smaller than many or most image files, there is no significant overhead here.
CGI.pm only needs to be loaded once if configured into apache, so the size of the source file is generally irrelevant. Also I'd repeat that "more code done well will be more efficient than less code done poorly" (which may or may not be true here). Just judging a program on the total mass of the source is not very useful.

Again, I think you need to present some concrete examples of what you mean by "redundant" and "bloated". Simply saying "Well I can tell you haven't read the source" is akin to saying "I can't give you any reason, just take my word for it" -- if you cannot demonstrate something in real terms (not vaguaries), how do you expect potential users to take you seriously?

Thanks for raising the issue tho, in the future I may make use of CGI::Minimal instead ;P

[reply]