I've used both Catalyst and Mojolicious. Mojolicious is much easier to get started with, because you don't have to touch several namespaces just to get a single page to render.

Also doing non-blocking stuff with Catalyst seems to be a real pain (though I haven't tried it yet).

I liked the Catalyst tutorials and general documentation. But Catalyst is not Dancer, which is like chewing air to learn. :-)

When I read up a little on Mojolicious to have an opinion a couple of years ago, it seemed more complex than Catalyst?

I'll put my JavaScript hobby aside and look at it again. Any good links? [Except the one posted by walterbell at http://blogs.perl.org/users/joel_berger/mojolicious/ Grumble, that was already on my reading list.]

Catalyst is not less complex than Mojolicious, if that is your measure of goodness. From an installing pov or from usability. In Mojolicious you don't need Moose, and you don't have an explicit model layer so you aren't pushed towards using an ORM. You can use either, but they aren't a hard or suggested requirement. The MojoCasts might be a good place to start if all you've done is read and come up with a slightly off impression http://mojocasts.com/e1

Thanks!

Those are elegant, I'll watch them as if they were new Seinfeld episodes. :-)

I didn't have a "slightly off impression", rather I didn't see a large reason to go Mojo.* instead of Catalyst (without a need for real time support.)

I can true that. I usually see a lot of Perl Devs, think that Perl as a language is not worth learning from scratch, and the framework is all there is to it.

As soon as you mention the outdated (indated by FCGI-mod_perl) CGI module .. you are thought to be living in the 90s. For production, I can agree partially with them, but for educational purposes, it twitches my nerve :/

Though, I like mojo over others due to its lean code.