On 12/4/06, Octavian Rasnita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And I said that there is no de facto standard, because there isn't one generally accepted.
There's a defacto standard for writing Catalyst applications.
The Catalyst users have an opinion, the CGI::App might have another one, the Mason users who knows... maybe another one, and so on. So the newbie might finally start learning Python or Ruby.
And those other languages probably also have choices between templating systems or ORMs. The thing that actually makes Rails so successful is the fact that it has everything already sorted out. You can't really learn Rails without using ActiveRecord for instance. If the newbie gives up on Catalyst and ends up learning another language it won't be because of having to learn TT and DBIx::Class along with Catalyst. It would probably because he's a Windows user and things don't work as smoothly as the alternatives. Most people don't really want nor need the flexibility provided by Catalyst, they'd rather have a pre-packaged framework that just works. This whole conversation boils down to what are the aims of Catalyst as an open source project. In order to gain popularity there should be less focus on flexibility and more focus on "achievability". However, in most serious developments this won't help much, it'd just be a lot of work and the only benefits might be a dozen new users - there would be no real benefits for the existing users and, most importantly, for the core devs. -Nilson Santos F. Jr. _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/