Re: HTML Templating as Tree Rewriting: Part I: "If Statements"

I've seen Sean Burke's articles and up until now this seems to me to increase the work/time necessary to produce the templates, site and code in relation to Template::Toolkit, for instance. Not to mention the snowball's chance in hell of a webdesigner actually learning to use that system.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and show how easy and simple to use that method can be.

ESC[78;89;13p ESC[110;121;13p

Comment on Re: HTML Templating as Tree Rewriting: Part I: "If Statements"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: HTML Templating as Tree Rewriting: Part I: "If Statements" by princepawn (Parson) on Oct 28, 2003 at 18:58 UTC
I've seen Sean Burke's articles and up until now this seems to me to increase the work/time necessary to produce the templates, site and code in relation to Template::Toolkit, for instance. I guess for me what I like are standard technologies that I already know. I know Perl (to some extent). I know HTML. I don't savor learning the intricacies, exceptions, and shortcomings of pseudo-languages. For example, did you know that Template Toolkit only does string comparisons and not numeric comparisons. Regarding template production, my original post showed how little work needs to be done to the HTML: you just pop little `id` tags in wherever you want to do some sort of tree rewrite. Then you just code up a little TreeBuilder/Seamstress to do the tree rewrite and thou art finished. Not to mention the snowball's chance in hell of a webdesigner actually learning to use that system. Dynamic HTML is the programmer's responsibility. Static HTML is the webdesigner's reponsibility. He would have nothing to learn vis-a-vis Seamstress. Please tell me I'm wrong, and show how easy and simple to use that method can be. Well, the simplicity is in the fact that you have 2 well-known rock-solid technologies (Perl and HTML) and nothing else. I will post today a Hello world program. DBSchema::Sample	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: HTML Templating as Tree Rewriting: Part I: "If Statements"
by princepawn (Parson) on Oct 28, 2003 at 18:58 UTC

I've seen Sean Burke's articles and up until now this seems to me to increase the work/time necessary to produce the templates, site and code in relation to Template::Toolkit, for instance.

I guess for me what I like are standard technologies that I already know. I know Perl (to some extent). I know HTML. I don't savor learning the intricacies, exceptions, and shortcomings of pseudo-languages. For example, did you know that Template Toolkit only does string comparisons and not numeric comparisons.

Regarding template production, my original post showed how little work needs to be done to the HTML: you just pop little id tags in wherever you want to do some sort of tree rewrite. Then you just code up a little TreeBuilder/Seamstress to do the tree rewrite and thou art finished.

Not to mention the snowball's chance in hell of a webdesigner actually learning to use that system.

Dynamic HTML is the programmer's responsibility. Static HTML is the webdesigner's reponsibility. He would have nothing to learn vis-a-vis Seamstress.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and show how easy and simple to use that method can be.

Well, the simplicity is in the fact that you have 2 well-known rock-solid technologies (Perl and HTML) and nothing else. I will post today a Hello world program.

DBSchema::Sample

[reply]
[d/l]