in reply to Re^2: RFC: Templating without a System
in thread RFC: Templating without a System
However, in many jobs shops, the HTML-whacking is done by people who specialize in that, and are generally better at driving DreamWeaver and Photoshop than they are at driving Emacs (or even vi).
Many people have reported that they can comfortably teach-by-example to these designers the mini-language of TT far faster than trying to explain why it's @foo in one place, but $foo[3] somewhere else.
So, while a mini-language may not make sense for you, it makes a great deal of sense in these shops.
Also, I find that having a mini-language keeps me honest about MVC. About the time it starts getting hard to write in TT, I realize that I'm actually writing control or model code, and that code belongs away from the view code. So, I rip that out and put it in Perl or SQL where it belongs.
-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Why a mini-language? (was Re^3: RFC: Templating without a System)
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 18, 2006 at 15:19 UTC | |
by merlyn (Sage) on Jul 01, 2006 at 15:16 UTC | |
by shmem (Chancellor) on Jul 01, 2006 at 23:38 UTC |