Repeated rounds of your ignoring outside input and
continuing on a tangent is not operating in a
scholarly fashion. In addition your use of the
word "discuss" presumes that I think you are bringing
something particularly useful to the table.
The fact was, and remains, that the quality of the example
code in your original paper was so uniformly low that it
completely overwhelmed the potential respective merits of
the two modules. (Those who think I am being too harsh
should read my analysis first.) Therefore
your original paper was utterly useless as a way of
exploring those issues.
Your new point which tries to say that programmatic
production of text is better (either HTML or SQL) is
again not a useful analogy. In fact your opinion on this
matter does not reflect awareness of the basic value of
separating content and presentation. That is why (quite
contrary to what you appear to think is the consensus
on producing HTML) most experienced programmers believe
that it is valuable to use a templating system if you are
trying to manage a complex website.
Moving logic into code is not always the right thing to
do. It certainly is not worth doing just to be able to
say that you did it! |