by kvorg on 5/30/14, 5:58 AM
I love the high level of polish and integration with other modern techs. Mojolicious has achieved. What I don't understand is the miunderstandings of the dependency and CPAN use design decisions: anyone using Mojolicious will notice the whole package is often smaller and faster than one of the specific packages they criticize Mojolicious to reimplement instead of just using, and most of such specialized packages are either useable or, when appropriate, simply used when available anyway. In the same vein, different kinds of APIs are exposed over the same efficient implementations (Mojolicious::Lite, B() ...). I find this an efficient and modern approach all new Perl projects should adopt and just count Mojolicious as a part of my core package tool chest (even when not writing a web application).
Go Mojo! (And ty kraih!)
by ixmatus on 5/29/14, 9:32 PM
So, it's a web framework that receives route requests and sends responses over a WebSocket / Comet connection?
I've had a similar idea for something in Haskell and it's cool to see someone doing this.
by hernan604 on 5/29/14, 10:36 PM
"Sebastian Riedel"++
Thanks for this mojo!
by jusob on 5/29/14, 10:09 PM
Any body has used both Mojolicious and Catalyst? I wonder how Mojolicious might be better than Catalyst.
by sigzero on 5/29/14, 11:58 PM
Those are some nice added features. Awesome and kudos to everyone for making it happen.