I would second Kee's point.
At $work, (a very large company which has been a heavy user of EmbPerl for
years), they are considering switching away (from both Embperl and even Perl).
One of the biggest things that was a problem was a lack of a good MVC framework
- we had to roll our own, slow and clumsy ones.
If I could show people how to plug our existing EP code as a view layer into
Catalyst, it would go a long way to convince the $powers that Embperl is worth
looking at.
From: Kee Hinckley
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Status of Embperl?
It's been a while since I've looked at existing frameworks in Perl (I'm stuck
in a long-term Python project right now). When I last did, I used Catalyst and
replaced TT with Embperl. I also augmented Embperl with a few features (a []
construct that does *no* escaping, and a dynamic include capability that works
well with the object model for giving you what pieces you need in the right
order only and only once—it's been a while, so I can't really describe it well).
I'd be happy to contribute both of those, although neither are what I'd call
polished.
The key issue I have is Frameworks, Frameworks, Frameworks. People expect more
out of their tools than Embperl provides. I think that Embperl would have a
much better chance of survival if it could be embedded in an existing
Framework. It's way faster than the pure-perl solutions, and it's much better
at managing cross-site scripting areas and form filling than any other system
out there.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
