Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

mojolicious.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#11

Post by thomas11 »

adrianhoward wrote: post #5
mike-cardwell wrote: post #2

I was going to start learning and using Catalyst soon. Why should I learn Mojolicious instead? Why shouldn't I?

Catalyst == larger community + more documentation + lots of useful modules out there. The downside is that it takes a heck of a lot of effort to get up to speed and I personally find that it can get in the way a little for smaller projects. Frameworks like Mojolicious, Jifty ( http://jifty.org/ ) and Dancer ( http://perldancer.org ) are much quicker to get up to speed on, but suffer slightly from having a smaller com…

Another vote for Dancer from me. You can start with a tiny one-file script and then slowly use sessions, templates, Plack middleware etc. as you need it. It's very elegant.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#12

Post by kraih »

thomas11 wrote: post #11
adrianhoward wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catalyst == larger community + more documentation + lots of useful modules out there. The downside is that it takes a heck of a lot of effort to get up to speed and I personally find that it can get in the way a little for smaller projects. Frameworks like Mojolicious, Jifty ( http://jifty.org/ ) and Dancer ( http://perldancer.org ) are much quicker to get up to speed on, but suffer slightly from having a smaller com…

Another vote for Dancer from me. You can start with a tiny one-file script and then slowly use sessions, templates, Plack middleware etc. as you need it. It's very elegant.

There is nothing Dancer does that Mojolicious can't do better, and then some.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#13

Post by kraih »

iloveponies wrote: post #6
mike-cardwell wrote: post #2

I was going to start learning and using Catalyst soon. Why should I learn Mojolicious instead? Why shouldn't I?

Perhaps the simplest explanation is this: Catalyst is suitable for big, complex things. Mojolicious is better for smaller things. Just as Rails is for big things, Sinatra for smaller things. Or Django is for big things, and web.py is for smaller things. They are two different frameworks, to serve different requirements to some extent.

You can't really compare Catalyst with Rails and Django since it has always been model layer agnostic like Sinatra and web.py.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#15

Post by LoonyPandora »

kraih wrote: post #12
thomas11 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another vote for Dancer from me. You can start with a tiny one-file script and then slowly use sessions, templates, Plack middleware etc. as you need it. It's very elegant.

There is nothing Dancer does that Mojolicious can't do better, and then some.

TIMTOWTDI (for the non perl guys, there is more than one way to do it - the motto of Perl)

Mojolicious is very cool, has strong leadership, direction, and is very opinionated.

I prefer Dancer, and believe it fills a slightly different niche - but the competition between both can only be a good thing.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#16

Post by thomas11 »

kraih wrote: post #12
thomas11 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another vote for Dancer from me. You can start with a tiny one-file script and then slowly use sessions, templates, Plack middleware etc. as you need it. It's very elegant.

There is nothing Dancer does that Mojolicious can't do better, and then some.

I didn't mean to attack Mojolicious at all. I've never played with it, but it seems very cool. I have used Dancer, and liked it very much, that's all I wanted to say.

It's great that you promote your framework, but it doesn't mean that similar frameworks can't be good.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#17

Post by kraih »

thomas11 wrote: post #16
kraih wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing Dancer does that Mojolicious can't do better, and then some.

I didn't mean to attack Mojolicious at all. I've never played with it, but it seems very cool. I have used Dancer, and liked it very much, that's all I wanted to say. It's great that you promote your framework, but it doesn't mean that similar frameworks can't be good.

They are not even playing in the same league.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#18

Post by olaf »

kraih wrote: post #12
thomas11 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another vote for Dancer from me. You can start with a tiny one-file script and then slowly use sessions, templates, Plack middleware etc. as you need it. It's very elegant.

There is nothing Dancer does that Mojolicious can't do better, and then some.

What about documentation? A few months ago, I was interested in Mojolicious, but it seemed to me, that the docs were hidden and incomplete, I completely lost my interest for that reason alone.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#19

Post by thomas11 »

kraih wrote: post #17
thomas11 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to attack Mojolicious at all. I've never played with it, but it seems very cool. I have used Dancer, and liked it very much, that's all I wanted to say. It's great that you promote your framework, but it doesn't mean that similar frameworks can't be good.

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 anyone that way.

Also, completely replacing your comment without indicating it with an [edit] or similar isn't very nice.

I admire your work in the Perl web space, and have been following it via Planet Perl. There's no need to defend it with snarky one-liners.

Re: Mojolicious Web Framework in Perl

#20

Post by kraih »

olaf wrote: post #18
kraih wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing Dancer does that Mojolicious can't do better, and then some.

What about documentation? A few months ago, I was interested in Mojolicious, but it seemed to me, that the docs were hidden and incomplete, I completely lost my interest for that reason alone.

They have improved significantly and are still improving, just take a look at the included Mojolicious::Lite tutorial and the Mojolicious::Guides.
Post reply on HN