in reply to Re: Catalyst or Dancer?
in thread Catalyst or Dancer?

My project will require user login, user pages (with some user-supplied categorized content), comments on pages, and functionality for browsing the categorized content.

That said, I tried to phrase my question to also be useful in general for any monks that come after me looking for pros and cons of using Catalyst vs. Dancer.

Since you mention Mojolicious, do you know of any compare and contrast page discussing Catalyst, Dancer, and Mojolicious?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Catalyst or Dancer?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Apr 22, 2011 at 21:08 UTC
    My project will require user login, user pages (with some user-supplied categorized content), comments on pages, and functionality for browsing the categorized content.

    All three frameworks make it easy to provide that functionality. So it's really up to your personal preference.

    Mojolicious is an all-in-one solution with minimal dependencies; it comes with a full asynchronous IO loop, web server, user agent and HTML parser with DOM interface.

    Dancer has a similar routing syntax (at least on the surface, haven't used it in depth), reinvents fewer wheels but also comes with less built-in functionality.

    Catalyst is the oldest and most mature of the three, with many existing plugins. Books have been published about it, so there are plenty of resources for learning.

    Have fun rolling your die.

    Perl 6 - second systems done right
[reply]

      Odd that Mojolicious has no CPAN dependencies. Why not take advantage of all the existing, useful, and tested CPAN modules you need? Surely there must be a lot of duplication of effort going into M...

      What in particular do you like about M?

[reply]
        What in particular do you like about M?

        Actually, nevermind. It seems to have great docs, a hip community, is easy to use, and is actively maintained. No need to roll any dice.

        Thanks for the help!

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom