[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gunther Birznieks) wrote:
>I am afraid that while I agree, a check system is really quite useful to
>me. Some things do need more quantification, but that can be done later.
>
>eg lightweight vs heavyweight is subjective. But it can be broken up into
>saying something like how much code needs to be loaded at start time (an
>issue for CGI/Perl). eg I think people would agree that the startup of
>CGI.pm is different from CGI::Lite which is different from cgi-lib.pl. Of
>course, there are many other features that you get from them that can make
>a difference in your program.
>
>Anyway, that is why this checklist is being designed by all of you and
>handled by an independent 3rd party. It's not a marketing tool. So if you
>complain about session support being a checkbox, I am sure that the feature
>name could be refined.
I agree. I came up with an initial set of checkboxes (posted here last
week), but I'd have no qualms about some author wanting to ditch some of
those. I think a useful comparison would use feature comparisons only
as a means of revealing the comparitive philosophies of the systems.
Gunther, has anyone found a good home for such a comparison to be
hosted? It would be cool if it were at perl.apache.org, or even better
at www.perl.com or something (since it's not mod_perl specific). As
long as it's easily updatable by its maintainers (and who are they?).
