[cgiapp] size of scripts and dependencies

[P Kishor]

Very good points Michael. My response to some of them below --

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Michael Peters <mpeters at plusthree.com> wrote:
> On 09/18/2009 09:33 AM, P Kishor wrote:
>>
>> But, now that we are done
>> comparing our overweight weight to a morbidly obese weight, how about
>> CGI::App on its own? To my completely uninformed mind, loading 40,000+
>> lines to create a small web page sounds like a lot... and, that
>> doesn't even include the web server and the Perl interpreter!
>
> But that's not what you tested. You tested Titanium which is not CGI::App.
> It's an opinionated framework based on CGI::App and it's plugins. If you
> just want to create something that makes "small web pages" then just load
> CGI::App and it's dependencies.

Actually, I did not test Titanium (I only invoked it as an example). I
tested my own application that is cobbled together with the various
bits and bobs of CGI::App and various plugins.


>
> Also, let's look at those numbers:
>
>  DBI - 7824
>  CGI::Simple - 3900
>
> That's 1/4 of all those lines just right there. And if you're going to use a
> database you need DBI. And if you're going to make a web app you need a CGI
> interface module (like CGI.pm or CGI::Simple) so I don't see a way to remove
> those.
>

I guess that is what I was trying to get at... one of the things that
many Perl modules (and CGI::App as well) make a big deal about is how
simple scripts are once you use those modules... for example, the oft
quoted example of WebApp.pm and instance script being only a couple of
lines. Well, in reality, all the plumbing is still there, just under a
carpet.


> Also, you're counting just raw lines which means you're counting comments
> and whitespace (which penalizes modules which are well commented). I'm not
> saying your criticism isn't valid, I'm just saying that your data is too
> flawed to support that criticism :)


Yes, my data are too flawed, but the criticism is still valid. But,
instead of kvetching in the wind, I will actually try an experiment. I
will remove all the comments from the modules that I am using (call
them the "production versions," analogous to the packed/minified
Javascript packages floating around), and even try to squish them into
one file. I am curious as to what I end up with.

Nevertheless, thanks for indulging with me in this argument. Your
points are very valid.


>
> --
> Michael Peters
> Plus Three, LP
>
> #####  CGI::Application community mailing list  ################
> ##                                                            ##
> ##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
> ##  visit:  http://lists.openlib.org/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp    ##
> ##                                                            ##
> ##  Web archive:   http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
> ##  Wiki:          http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/                 ##
> ##                                                            ##
> ################################################################
>
>



-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
=======================================================================
Sent from Madison, WI, United States