5 ms·
> And I guess Perl also never had its Django (or Rails). It’s got two of them - Catalyst (older still works fine) and Mojo - newer and shinier. I think python
by singingfish 6y ago
> And I guess Perl also never had its Django (or Rails).
It’s got two of them - Catalyst (older still works fine) and Mojo - newer and shinier.
I think python is a better fit for mathematical work. I like to say that python helps you think more like the computer does, and that perl helps the computer think more like you.
- cutler 6y agoCatalyst was no match for Rails. Mojolicious could have been had Miyagawa's PSGI/Plack appeared on the scene half a decade earlier.
- singingfish 6y agorails as far as I understand is opinionated and optimised for CRUD / database type applications. Catalyst is much more agnostic about the model you use. It provides the flexibility and a way of structuring the code and providing debug tooling that makes structuring a decent size app well reasonably easy to do.
- cutler 6y agoCatalyst was painful to work with in my experience. Just getting it setup was an achievement. Subroutine signatures as routes is an ugly hack.
- singingfish 6y agoI like catalyst,s dispatcher. And some of the pain of installing catalyst in the early days resulted in huge improvements to the change toolchain.
- cutler 6y agoI honestly think the Perl community's attachment to Catalyst contributed to Perl5's demise. Mojolicious was a much better bet for the future of Perl.
- singingfish 6y agoI've only done a little bit of mojolicious, but it's quite nice. The Mojo::UserAgent / Mojo::Dom tools are certainly great for writing web scrapers.