[cgiapp] The benefits of vanilla CGI vs. FastCGI

[Octavian Rasnita]

From: "Mark Fuller" <azfuller at gmail.com>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Mark Stosberg <mark at summersault.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Some ask "Why bother with vanilla CGI anymore?"
>
> I agree. The frameworks seem like the typical good idea that turns
> into a nightmare because of the "devils in the details." I'm not
> familiar with all of them. (I'm thinking of Catalyst, primarily.).
>
> It's one thing to see a pattern of activity. But, by the time the
> framework accommodates all the exceptions, it's worse than the illness
> it sought to cure. There's a steeper learning curve for Catalyst than
> there is for ordinary CGI (or, a helper like C::A). I don't see how
> that would ever be repaid over time by not having to do things like
> calling the template output routine.
>
> Mark

Well, the learning curve for Catalyst is very steap because the framework is 
fast developing, and the documentation is not very good (in my opinion).

Otherwise, learning strictly to use Catalyst is not very complicated, but 
right when a beginner started the Catalyst adventure, he also enters in the 
jungle of DBIx::Class, Template-Toolkit, Config::Any, HTML::FormFu, even 
Moose, and when you meet so many future friends at once, you use to forget 
their names until you got used with them one by one.

You can use Catalyst even without using the modules I told about above, but 
they are very helpful.

Octavian