<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:36 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arocker@vex.net">arocker@vex.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">><br>
> You might want to look at the various View and Controller plugins for Catalyst on CPAN. There are hundreds.<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> There are tons of JS frameworks.<br>
<br>
</div>These two statements identify a paradoxical situation. If there are too many options, it becomes easier to roll one's own, rather than wade through the numerous possible candidates assessing their suitability and reliability.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>And I'd said:</div><div>>> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Perl seems to have a more than N ways of doing it, where it = framework, and N is a sane, justifiable number.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "> </span></span></div>
<div><br></div><div>If Perl is to compete I believe it would serve itself by focusing the energies of its users on a smaller set.</div><div><br></div><div>While many criticize PHP for having too many functions built into the PHP core, that's a less complex issue than too many frameworks.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If one thing would get my attention for Perl 6 it would be a "fewer ways to do something" mentality. Convention over Configuration and all that.</div><div><br></div><div>Martin.</div><div><br>
</div><div><br></div></div>