A variant of Greenspun's tenth rule says that any sufficiently mature HTML template language becomes a clunky, ad-hoc variant dialect of its host language. Smarty exposes pretty much all the power of PHP with an even dumber syntax. TT2 does the same for Perl.
This is what I don't "get" about template languages. If I want to write my templates in something Turing-complete, then why would I want to learn and use the clunky, ad-hoc language? Why not just write my template in Perl, a language that I already know?
This is what I like about Text::Template, and why I choose it over TT2 and friends on the rare occasions I actually need templates. Rather than inventing a new template language, it simply provides a mechanism for embedding Perl in strings, and evaluating those strings.
More often though, if I'm outputting HTML rather than treating it as templated text, I tend to prefer to build it up as a DOM tree and then serialize it.
In reply to Re: HTML::Template Vs Template Toolkit
by tobyink
in thread HTML::Template Vs Template Toolkit
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |