Moritz Lenz writes: > Smylers wrote: > > > Moritz Lenz writes: > > > > > Web is hopefully "CGI done right" > > > > ... why are we hoping that it will be "done right"? > > Because we hope we learned from the past. There are several other > modules that fullfill most of CGI's tasks, some of them do most of it > better. Reimplementing one of them would already make Web a "better > CGI" ;-)
Indeed -- making a better CGI is a great idea. But the fact that such innovations came along later supports my point. I suspect that some of these got less mindshare than they otherwise would have done (or were seen as inferior to CGI) because: * The CGI module was core. * By being called simply CGI, the CGI module gets some kind of superiority over all the other modules which have to be CGI::Something. Has Larry yet decreed whether Web will be bundled with Perl 6? > > Given the history of things like this it strikes me as unlikely that > > now is the particular moment where we suddenly manage to create a > > perfect library, and as such this would be hoping against the light > > of available evidence! > > You're right, but we should ship things as best as we can, so we try > ;-) Of course. But there's a big difference between the attitude of 'let's do the best we can right now' and 'this is our one chance to do this right'. > > It seems entirely possible that during Perl 6's life somebody, > > possibly somebody who at the moment hasn't even heard of Perl 6, > > will create a better web module. It would be good if at that point > > it becomes straightforward for it to get acceptance and people to > > adopt it. > > Right, but that's no reason not to try hard on your own. It isn't. But it is a reason to anticipate the existence of future developments, and try to be careful not to do anything which makes life harder for them. Smylers
