Re: Model-View-Controller: Template Toolkit vs. XSLT

From my short encounters with templating systems, I offer you those three terse reviews:

Template Toolkit sucks. I don't know why other people like it, but they do.
XSLT sucks even more. It has all the features of Template Toolkit, but you have to write them in verbose XML, without being able to output non-XML.
I have no experience with XSL-FO, therefore it must suck even more.

If my reviews are too terse for your taste, or you crave other opinions, consider Super Search, which has many discussions of templating systems on this site. Personally, I haven't found a single templating system that suits all my needs, so I switch between HTML::Template, Petal and Template::Toolkit.

Comment on Re: Model-View-Controller: Template Toolkit vs. XSLT

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Model-View-Controller: Template Toolkit vs. XSLT by dug (Chaplain) on Oct 15, 2004 at 14:11 UTC
Just a nit: XSLT sucks even more. It has all the features ... without being able to output non-XML. It's easy (well, easy in XSLT standards {grin}) to output non-XML. Take, for instance, this stylesheet. -- Douglas Hunter	[reply]
Re^3: Model-View-Controller: Template Toolkit vs. XSLT by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 15, 2004 at 14:15 UTC
Not if you want/need control over the whitespace. And if you want to output XML-like, but not XML-compliant structures, like, say, Apache config files, the whole thing becomes even uglier.	[reply]
Re^4: Model-View-Controller: Template Toolkit vs. XSLT by dug (Chaplain) on Oct 15, 2004 at 15:17 UTC
It may become uglier, but that is different than saying it's not possible. I dislike XSLT. I think that it is clunky and overly verbose, and my brain doesn't grok it quickly. But that doesn't mean that I can't use it to output non-XML, control whitespace or output XML-like but not XML-compliant structures. I'm just drawing a distinction between a PITA and not possible {grin}. -- Douglas Hunter	[reply]