zlacker

[return to "What Killed Perl?"]
1. dana32+6v1[view] [source] 2025-11-19 19:07:04
>>speckx+(OP)
To get Perl to work with apache (the most used web server for a time), there were two options: the not-so-complicated cgi script which gets executed from scratch on every request, then there was mod_perl which required a lot of tinkering with apache configurations and writing your code in a different way.

Even with those two options, you can't just write some code in a page and execute it without some sort of itermediate code.

Thats why php became so popular, perl coders could pick it up in a day ($ and all) and all you have to do is write .php files to a server - with the bonus that you have a rudimentary templating system built-in to php.

There really isn't much more to it than that.

◧◩
2. creer+SB1[view] [source] 2025-11-19 19:40:53
>>dana32+6v1
> mod_perl which required a lot of tinkering [...]

Here we used mod_perl all over the place and it was glorious. It did take understanding how to use it - well, yes - same as the rest of perl (or apache for that matters). But it was so well integrated! I still miss it.

"Picking it up in one day" is not a criteria for professional deployements.

◧◩◪
3. anonno+D03[view] [source] 2025-11-20 06:07:31
>>creer+SB1
> Here we used mod_perl all over the place and it was glorious. It did take understanding how to use it - well, yes - same as the rest of perl (or apache for that matters). But it was so well integrated! I still miss it.

See >>45989369

Most people, including small businesses, used shared hosting providers back then, and none of them supported mod_perl, while most of them eventually did support mod_php. That's why PHP came to completely dominate the market for self-hosted (or hostable) web applications, like phpBB, Drupal, and WP--writing those in anything other than PHP after mod_php became available (but before AWS) made no sense. PHP was at least as ubiquitously supported as Perl, and through mod_php (avoiding CGI's overhead), much faster.

[go to top]