On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Marc Chantreux wrote:
> hello,
>
> > The only thing that's really missing in perl is proper thread support.
> > Don't know if that's going to happen.
>
> seems ... complicated ...
Tell me about it. The only existing thread support was so clunky it got
thoroughly deprecated. It was really bad back in userland pthread days,
because you couldn't even build perl binaries depending on threaded libraries
(all-or-nothing -pthread flag) such as frozenbubble.
> > I have a wish-list of things that are not that likely to happen, I would
> > like to be able to use prototypes on methods, for instance.
>
> what do you mean by this? prototypes are here for decades and signatures
> are experimental and i guess it will be core in some releases.
You can't mix oo lookup and prototypes.
Stuff like
$o->method { code }
for instance.
you have to use the clunkier
$o->method(sub { code });
> > Perl also missed a turn for web development. I think Catalyst was a huge
> > mistake (hey, you've got *choices* everywhere. Let's confuse everyone),
>
> perl had CGI.pm, maypole, mod_perl, catalyst, jifty, dancer, mojolicious ...
> Template toolkit is still by far the best template toolkit i know.
> i really thing the only thing where perl was not a precursor in web dev
> is plack (which is inspired by wsgi which is inspired by rack ... i
> don't know if there is another ancestor).
That's the big issue. Too much choice in the ecosystem, with some of it not
clearly enough explained... and no simple integration with js libraries for
ajax at first.
> you mean mason ? mason is the php of perl: don't organize your code:
> write a single page with everything in it ... it was a terrible thing
> to maintain (see the code of request tracker...).
Yeah, I mean mason. At some point long ago, it was about the only
game in town for perl.
> > Dancer was a few years too late to the party.
>
> sinatra (from ruby) was the source of inspiration of Dancer which,
> AFAIK, appears years before flask and bottle.
> ActiveRecord was easier than DBIx::Class for simple situations. that's
> one of the reasons of the popularity of RoR (also the Ruby syntax).
I still thing DBIx::Class is overkill. The DB::Rose stuff was way simpler
and I would have preferred for it to win.
