in reply to Re: HTML::Template vs. CGI.pm
in thread HTML::Template vs. CGI.pm

It's been many years since I worked on a project where the HTML was done by the programmers, and I would still prefer templates for various reasons. However, if generating HTML programmatically is your bag, you might like higher-level abstractions like what Bivio does.

I think you're exaggerating the part about needing to change your data format. Template Toolkit can deal with pretty much any data structure you pass in, and doesn't need in-line Perl to do it.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: HTML::Template vs. CGI.pm
by argggh (Monk) on Nov 11, 2003 at 12:14 UTC
    I think you're exaggerating the part about needing to change your data format. Template Toolkit can deal with pretty much any data structure you pass in, and doesn't need in-line Perl to do it.
    You're right, that was unfair. Still, you end up catering to templating toolkits' notion of control structures no matter what, be they rigidly formatted data structures or a separate specialized in-line language. I'd like to code my control structures in Perl.
[reply]
      I don't really see where you're getting this from. If you want to code your control structures in Perl, in-line Perl systems let you do exactly that. The only popular templating tool that imposes restrictions on your data structure is HTML::Template, and even there I find them pretty easy to work within.

      There is definitely room in the world for programmatic generation of HTML. You don't need to drag down templating in order to prove the value of your approach.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom