comment on

Frankly I don't see the point: CGI.pm's main asset is that it works, it is used all over the web and is extremely robust.

Now maybe it is convoluted inside, and it does 2 things instead of one. But it is also very cleverly written and performances don't suffer from the slight feature bloat. In any case if you want performaces you can use mod_perl, I would think that starting a Perl interpreter is what takes up time, not loading CGI.pm.

So I for one am willing to take CGI.pm as a black box, size and all, and even to use the HTML generation methods for quick forms that do not justify using a templating system.

Using a smaller module does not IMHO justify the security (and stability) risk involved in using a new module.

In reply to Re: RFC CGI.pm refactoring by mirod
in thread RFC CGI.pm refactoring by tachyon

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


XP is just a number
	PerlMonks