On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote: > > > TT was ok, but it did use a bunch of ram ;) > > So does Mason. HTML::Template is no doubt much leaner, but it's also lean > on features. Nothing wrong with that if it suits your needs, though. > > Most Perl templating systems are probably slower and/or bulkier than PHP. > > The best counter for PHP folks is one word, "CPAN" ;) > > Also, Mason at least provides lots of features beyond templating, and is > as much of an app framework as anything. This may be true of TT and the > others, I'm not really sure.
Just to chime in here, Mason is very much a framework. It expresses a particular view of web site development. I'm a huge fan of it, personally, but putting that aside, Mason is mainly about finding the proper balance between code monkey and html monkey. The slightly amusng thing, and what I take as a vote for Mason having found the balance, is that radically different styles of coding have evolved - I recently downloaded the code behind www.masonhq.com, and compared it to how we do things, and was shocked and appalled. And picked up some really good ideas... In general, Mason allows an HTMLer to become more of a programmer, and also requires programmers to be HTML savvy, or at least HTML sensitive. I find this a good thing. H::T is much more programmer-centric. In a lot of contexts, that makes sense. Informally (as in, I haven't done a systematic comparison), it is also faster than Mason. Mason isn't slow, but if you need every last gram of performance, well, you probably shouldn't be using a general framework anyway. And yes, they're all RAM-intensive. I don't actually care that much - RAM is cheap for general purpose servers. Just buzzing in with opinion - which is what I think the original poster was soliciting. HTH, my $.02, not a holy warrior, etc. -j -- Jamie Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. - Albert Einstein
