Hi, i don't want to start flame, but only ask when I make any project, why do I should choose Dancer instead Mojo*. Thank you for yours answer. " "
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:37 +0100 (CET) <igor.bujna@post.cz> wrote:
i don't want to start flame, but only ask when I make any project, why do I should choose Dancer instead Mojo*.
You should choose whichever has the features you require, or whichever you feel more comfortable with. As most web frameworks have similar features, that latter point is likely to be far more important. My advice: give both a try, whichever you get a better feeling with, go with it. I originally found Dancer as an interested user, and it was the first framework that I didn't feel was getting in my way and forcing me to code the framework's way, but rather seemed to work with me - I realised with that feeling that I'd found the framework for me. Try both (and any others, Catalyst etc) until you get that same feeling, and then you have your answer. Nobody can tell you which framework is the best fit for you but you yourself. -- David Precious ("bigpresh") <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook www.preshweb.co.uk/cpan www.preshweb.co.uk/github
David's answer is exactly what you should do. However, if you already have a list of constraints, prerequisites, you could list them and we could tell you what Dancer would provide you with. Start by describing what you want to do maybe :) On 15 March 2013 17:40, David Precious <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:37 +0100 (CET) <igor.bujna@post.cz> wrote:
i don't want to start flame, but only ask when I make any project, why do I should choose Dancer instead Mojo*.
You should choose whichever has the features you require, or whichever you feel more comfortable with. As most web frameworks have similar features, that latter point is likely to be far more important.
My advice: give both a try, whichever you get a better feeling with, go with it.
I originally found Dancer as an interested user, and it was the first framework that I didn't feel was getting in my way and forcing me to code the framework's way, but rather seemed to work with me - I realised with that feeling that I'd found the framework for me.
Try both (and any others, Catalyst etc) until you get that same feeling, and then you have your answer. Nobody can tell you which framework is the best fit for you but you yourself.
-- David Precious ("bigpresh") <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook www.preshweb.co.uk/cpan www.preshweb.co.uk/github
_______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list dancer-users@dancer.pm http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
I try both(catalyst too). For me is Dancer winner. You can look on http:// www.maxi-tip.cz , nicer, easy for use, modular, DSL, plugins. I have discussion with guy which has only prefer Mojo*. I look on Mojo and it looks similar. For me Mojo is OO philosophy and everything is installed in Mojo(such as JSON, etc...). I only try to find arguments why use Dancer instead Mojo. Is hypnotoad server better than plackup(with starman). How can look benchmark between Mojo and Dancer. ---------- Původní zpráva ---------- Od: David Precious <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> Datum: 15. 3. 2013 Předmět: Re: [dancer-users] Dancer vs Mojolicous "On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:37 +0100 (CET) <igor.bujna@post.cz> wrote:
i don't want to start flame, but only ask when I make any project, why do I should choose Dancer instead Mojo*.
You should choose whichever has the features you require, or whichever you feel more comfortable with. As most web frameworks have similar features, that latter point is likely to be far more important. My advice: give both a try, whichever you get a better feeling with, go with it. I originally found Dancer as an interested user, and it was the first framework that I didn't feel was getting in my way and forcing me to code the framework's way, but rather seemed to work with me - I realised with that feeling that I'd found the framework for me. Try both (and any others, Catalyst etc) until you get that same feeling, and then you have your answer. Nobody can tell you which framework is the best fit for you but you yourself. -- David Precious ("bigpresh") <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook www.preshweb.co.uk/cpan www.preshweb.co.uk/github _______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list dancer-users@dancer.pm http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users"
From: igor.bujna@post.cz Hi, i don't want to start flame, but only ask when I make any project, why do I should choose Dancer instead Mojo*. Thank you for yours answer. David and Damien already gave a better answer. I can tell you how I chosen to use Dancer and maybe it will help you also. I like to use Catalyst (with DBIx::Class) because it offers very many features, it is not a micro-framework which is suitable for projects hosted on servers with enough memory and resources. But some web apps must work on a VPS that has only 512 MB RAM in which I also need to run other programs (like a MySQL db), and in that case I prefer to use a web framework that consumes less memory and eventually skip using DBIx::Class also. So the options are Dancer, Dancer2, Mojolicious, and Mojolicious::Lite because I never was a fan of CGI::Application or other older Perl frameworks. Between Dancer and Dancer2 the option is Dancer2, because it allow using configuration files in other formats than YAML and it uses Moo and it is a newer version of Dancer anyway, even though Dancer2 seems to consume much more memory than Dancer. I read Mojolicious documentation but I've seen that it doesn't have an automatic URL dispatcher, so all the URL mappings should be defined manually in a separate file, and when some changes are made in the code, that file must be also updated. In some cases this method might be good, but for what I need and prefer... it is not. So I needed to choose between Dancer2 and Mojolicious::Lite. I liked the way Mojolicious::Lite use methods of $self in the subroutines, which is very Perlish OOP, but I didn't like that it promotes its own way of doing everything instead of using other (and better known) CPAN modules. And then I found that Dancer2's way is more clear and elegant, although it is not very Perlish (or maybe exactly for this reason :-) Dancer2 doesn't offer so many features as Catalyst, it is a bit lower level, but this makes it more flexible and it doesn't stay in your way when you want to do something which is not very common. I prefer to be able to use a framework that can work well with the modules I like - DBIx::Class, Template-Toolkit, Moo... and not with a framework that recommends using other similar modules. This is how I've chosen to use Dancer2 for smaller projects and Catalyst for bigger ones. Octavian
participants (4)
-
damien krotkine -
David Precious -
igor.bujna＠post.cz -
Octavian Rasnita