One meaning of the word ignorant is "unaware or uninformed." Despite the obvious knee-jerk reaction most of us have when that word is directed at us, I think it applies here. There is an unawareness and uninformed-ness (okay, so that's not a word ... call me ignorant) in statements that blindly link Perl, CGI, HTTP, and HTML without clearly distinguishing which is responsible for what. There is supposedly a more complete article that puts it all in context but I have been unable to access that today -- the referenced site is down. Further, I'd argue that as a writer concerned about this bigger perspective, it's unresponsible to let it be narrowed down into an inaccurate piece of writing if that's what happened. It's kind of like someone taking your code, slicing pieces out then posting it as yours. If you knew about it and let it happen, shame on you. If you didn't know about it, you'd at least direct your anger at the editor, not towards those questioning the validity of your code.

Things like this don't anger me. I was more amused. If my reply came across as angry, I apologize. I think we should question most things. That's how we learn. This article, starting off with a title of CGI Sucks, reads like one big troll to me. Maybe we shouldn't have taken the bait, but what's a day without a little controversy?