[Catalyst] CatInABox versus Manual::Tutorial

[Octavian Rasnita]

From: "Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior" <acid06 at gmail.com>
> Can you describe in details what were your issues under Win32 when
> using Catalyst?
> Currently, I primarily develop under Win32, so I've got some
> experience. Session and DBIC *do* install under Win32.
>

I don't remember exactly which of the modules required by Catalyst didn't
want to install nicely, but there were many. In order to install Catalyst, I
have followed the recommendations from the POD documentation in order to be
able to run that test app.

I have seen a module probably wrong spelled, with four ":" in it (::::) in
that POD. Other modules can't be found with PPM, so I have tried installing
Catalyst using the CPAN shell.
When installing with cpan some modules gave errors, and I needed to go back
to ppm in order to install them. Fortunately they were accessible as ppm
packages.

So the problem of Catalyst is that it is very hard to install it under
Windows, needing to use the ppm and cpan shell, or even downloading and
compiling some modules from the cpan.org, but not only one of these methods.

I am not using Windows in production, but I *always* use Windows for
developing the programs, then put them run under Linux, so they need to be
portable.

I don't like Ruby, but I can find reasons for telling other people that perl
is better harder and harder, because they use to say that the code in other
languages like Ruby or Python is clearer, that the programs run very fast,
that they are portable, very easy to install, some of the frameworks have a
better documentation, not to say that they are also better promoted...

I know that Catalyst use very many modules developed by others, but I think
it could be a good idea to package a framework that includes all those
modules, so the users will just need to download and install a single big
package of modules, without needing others. That package could have a
precompiled version for Windows which is absolutely the same as the Unix
version. Otherwise, some of the developers might not like to use
Cat-in-a-box under Windows and the real Catalyst under Unix, because they
won't be sure if both packages have the same functionality, and they might
not like that "there is more than one way to do it", and they might choose
Rails.

I hope what I said doesn't hurt anyone, but I am just trying to think how
perl and Catalyst could be used by more programmers than other languages and
frameworks.

Just search with google after:

+Rails +Ruby
and
+Zope +Python
and
+Catalyst +Perl

And you will see which of them is found on more sites. Python and Ruby are
not crappy languages like PHP, and if they are used more, this means that
those frameworks are really good. Catalyst developers should try to see why.

Oh, and BTW, that error of the Internet Explorer that cause Catalyst
tutorial application not work without setting keep-alive (-k) should be also
be solved.

Teddy