Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl • Hacker News Board

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#21

Post by kraih » Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 10:39 AM UTC

thomas11 wrote: post #19

kraih wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not even playing in the same league.

You keep hinting at Dancer's inferiority without giving any examples. When I said Dancer is "similar" I was only thinking of Mojolicious::Lite. Feature-wise Dancer and Mojolicious are obviously not in the same league, and are not meant to be. People who just needed a small and easy solution were happy enough with Dancer. Maybe nowadays Mojolicious::Lite should be their go-to solution - but you're not gonna convince a…

I've given very specific examples before, the result was a flame war, i have no interest in that.

Now i would rather stay on topic and talk about more exciting things like Mojolicious.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#22

Post by asukrieh » Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 1:01 PM UTC

kraih wrote: post #21

thomas11 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep hinting at Dancer's inferiority without giving any examples. When I said Dancer is "similar" I was only thinking of Mojolicious::Lite. Feature-wise Dancer and Mojolicious are obviously not in the same league, and are not meant to be. People who just needed a small and easy solution were happy enough with Dancer. Maybe nowadays Mojolicious::Lite should be their go-to solution - but you're not gonna convince a…

I've given very specific examples before, the result was a flame war, i have no interest in that. Now i would rather stay on topic and talk about more exciting things like Mojolicious.

May I underline that the flamewar you're referring to was totally intended by yourself? Your (public) IRC logs prove it by themselves (you even called that a "marketing" campaign). So it's a bit funny when you say afterwards "i have no interest in that".

For the "design issues" in Dancer, you may not know, but the code base has hugely been rewritten since your last epic marketing actions. So what you're saying here might be very well obsolete, just for the record.

Oh and one last word, as I said before, I don't understand why you put so much hate and energy when Dancer is mentioned. What's the problem? Do you want to rule the world or what?

If Mojolicious is so good, why do you need to make so much noise?

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#23

Post by kraih » Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 2:16 PM UTC

asukrieh wrote: post #22

kraih wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've given very specific examples before, the result was a flame war, i have no interest in that. Now i would rather stay on topic and talk about more exciting things like Mojolicious.

May I underline that the flamewar you're referring to was totally intended by yourself? Your (public) IRC logs prove it by themselves (you even called that a "marketing" campaign). So it's a bit funny when you say afterwards "i have no interest in that". For the "design issues" in Dancer, you may not know, but the code base has hugely been rewritten since your last epic marketing actions. So what you're saying here m…

And yet, the second i state that i have no interest in a flame war you suddenly pop up to start one, bravo.

P.S.: Every single design issue i pointed out is still present.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#24

Post by asukrieh » Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 2:39 PM UTC

kraih wrote: post #23

asukrieh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I underline that the flamewar you're referring to was totally intended by yourself? Your (public) IRC logs prove it by themselves (you even called that a "marketing" campaign). So it's a bit funny when you say afterwards "i have no interest in that". For the "design issues" in Dancer, you may not know, but the code base has hugely been rewritten since your last epic marketing actions. So what you're saying here m…

And yet, the second i state that i have no interest in a flame war you suddenly pop up to start one, bravo. P.S.: Every single design issue i pointed out is still present.

you're funny :) really.