RSS | Module Info | Add a review of CGI.pm

CGI.pm (3.41)

CGI.pm is nasty, it's ugly, it's badly-documented, and it's difficult to use. I find it hilarious that twenty people disagree with me. Have they ever actually used the module?

BKB - 2008-08-20 18:01:37
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.37)

Ignore the troll below and just RTFM. The correct argument to pass a document encoding to CGI::header() is the "-charset" parameter.

See the "-utf8" pragma to enable auto-utf8 on input parameters.

Use a template module (Template Toolkit for example) for HTML generation not CGI.pm' s template interface.

Jonathan Rockway' s review does not make any sense either. You can still use CGI.pm for input processing and uploads and it is suitable for simple applications. Also it is still maintained and new fetures added if needed and stable.

Burak Gürsoy - 2008-06-23 14:29:22
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.37)

This is a reply to BKB's post fon 2008-06-23 00:55:33.

BKB: There are plenty of things other than CGI.pm. CGI.pm is not for new apps, it's for keeping legacy apps working. New Perl web applications use frameworks like Catalyst, Jifty, Continuity, CGI::Application, Mason, etc. You should take a look at one of those (Catalyst is the most popular) instead.

Jonathan Rockway - 2008-06-23 04:45:14
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.29)

good

barani - 2007-10-11 22:25:25
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.25)

God bless CGI.pm and its author(s). It has proved itself time and again as an outstanding gift to the Perl user base, the CGI programmer's best friend.

Tommy Butler - 2007-02-22 09:37:36
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.25)

Love CGI.pm but the documentation is ridiculous. Is it in line with open source principles to withhold documentation so that you can sell a book?

miguel - 2006-11-27 08:43:01
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.20)

Clearly the standard in web programming, CGI.pm uses some innovative techniques to handle unique problems. Though the module is rather bloated, lighter modules refractoring its functionality exhist as a result of Lincoln's hard work.

Gyan Kapur - 2006-07-05 07:13:53
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.15)

The module's ubiquity makes it a very useful tool, but it's let down by it's many modes of operation for backwards compatibility, and poor documentation of the other modules in the distribution.

Benjamin Smith - 2005-12-22 08:19:27
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (3.00)

Great module.

Vlad Tepes - 2003-09-02 20:29:25
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI / CGI.pm (3.00)

Thorough. Very thorough.

It would be nice if the HTML generation methods weren't in there, but they have their use sometimes (though I'm more inclined to pull in TT or similar). The best thing about this module is that it's omnipresent. Not always a recent version, but there's _some_ version.

Iain Truskett - 2003-08-19 23:40:22
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (2.99)

If you are not using mod_perl, then you should be using CGI.pm.

use CGI or die;

Jeff Anderson - 2003-08-18 06:02:57
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (2.99)

Its CGI.pm; its great!

Joseph F. Ryan - 2003-08-16 16:55:25
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI.pm (2.99)

Okay, it's a great module. With great documentation. Everyone knows that. But my beef with CGI.pm is that it tries to do too much. There are so many things you could do with this module and it's so big. Also it would be nice if there were some more built-in security features turned on by default... Anyway, why are you reading this? You are still going to use this module no matter what. :)

jacques - 2003-08-15 23:24:33
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Perl.org sites : bugs | dev | history | jobs | learn | lists | use © Copyright 2002-2008 The Perl Foundation Site Information and Contacts