2 ms·
> No dependencies or libraries to install, upgrade, maintain, test, and secure. So you don't actually want this program to do nearly anything useful unless you
by VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
> No dependencies or libraries to install, upgrade, maintain, test, and secure.
So you don't actually want this program to do nearly anything useful unless you write it all yourself.
> Zero external configuration, other than telling your webserver to enable CGI on your file.
So now you have to have a webserver external dependency and also configure it. Configuring Apache for CGI securely was no fun unless you were an expert webmaster.
People really put their rose-colored glasses on when they reminisce about this stuff. But there's a reason why we don't use it anymore. We don't need to make up nonsense about why it was so great.
- MintPaw 4y ago> So you don't actually want this program to do nearly anything useful unless you write it all yourself. I think the idea is that there's no required dependencies. Unless I misunderstand, you can take on whatever dependencies you want from your chosen language.
- myth2018 4y agoWith all due respect, I think you missed some points there. > > No dependencies or libraries to install, upgrade, maintain, test, and secure. This is mentioned as opposed to what we have today with Node.js, Pip and so on. Old CGI programs surely had dependencies. But dependency management was dramatically simpler. Of course there are pros and cons in the comparison. But simplicity is the key reminiscence here. > But there's a reason why we don't use it anymore. However I wonder: are all those reasons still valid? To what extent were those reasons motivated by rational decisions instead of pure trend-following? We shall not fool ourselves: not every technical decision we make have grounds on reason. I suspect most of them are not.