Talk:Catalyst vs Ruby on Rails
Biased much? Not going to edit the page and have it defaced later, but.... Rails definitely has minor scaling issues, yes. Although, I'm sure even Twitter has developed multiple database communications; that's sad if they have not, it's quiet simple. Rails is NOT difficult to get passed the 'complex' second tier learning curve if you have been a developer for a while or if you're humble enough to read other coders work. I have not edited the wiki as I have not used Catalyst, but it seems all the edits are definitely Catalyst bias, it'd be nice to get an opinion from editors that have extensively used both frameworks.
[edit] Installation
The Installation section is full of made up nonsense, such as the probability that a given Perl module is broken. And having 300 Perl modules installed has nothing to do with how many are used by Catalyst. Most Perl modules are shipped with tests to catch broken modules, and one does not generally upgrade modules in a production environment unless it is necessary (e.g. security issues).
It's also a policy of Perl to maintain backwards compatibility on upgrades, and the vast majority of Perl modules also do so. (Contrast this with Ruby upgrades that do not maintain backwards compatibility....)
