4 ms·

Pakyow also uses logicless templates. It achieves this by having processors in ruby that you can bind to scopes/attributes. <div data-scope="users"><div data-

by toolz 11y ago

Pakyow also uses logicless templates. It achieves this by having processors in ruby that you can bind to scopes/attributes. <div data-scope="users"><div data-attr="name"></div></div> Now I have everything I need to process this html with my logic to turn it into <div id="users"> <div id="user_1"> Frank </div> <div id="user_2"> Bob </div> </div> https://pakyow.org/ https://pakyow.org/ edit: I wish downvotes required commenting on why you're downvoting.

mst 11y ago
I suspect it's because people regard the implied foreach loop of data-scope to not count as logicless. Personally I can see the arguments both ways, and have concluded that simply ensuring I'm using the same definition of logicless as the people I'm talking to is the best answer.
- toolz 11y ago
  Ahh, well I never claimed it was logicless. I claimed the templates were logicless, and they are. The logic is kept separate inside the processors that you bind to the template.
  - mst 11y ago
    Except the -scope part means that the foreach-ness is indicated by the template, so people consider that to be not-logicless. I understood your claim fine. I'm trying to explain why it might be considered false (and I did already say I consider the arguments each way basically hair splitting).
    - toolz 11y ago
      Interesting, I've never imagined an identifier could be labeled as logic. There is no need for a scope, if you mean that the outer identifier is logic. Anything could be the identifier and inside the processor you could define anything to be the outer layer. You could flip data-attr and data-scope just as easily, so I'm not sure where there could ever be an argument that those things represent logic rather than markup. Either way, I _think_ I have a better understand of potential conflicting views. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Can_Not 11y ago
Your example actually looks like a namespace disaster about to happen with "id". Needs some prefixing and/or improved naming conventions. I'm not really how making your template have "less logic" than your example would produce a usable template language.

by toolz 11y ago

mst 11y ago

I suspect it's because people regard the implied foreach loop of data-scope to not count as logicless. Personally I can see the arguments both ways, and have concluded that simply ensuring I'm using the same definition of logicless as the people I'm talking to is the best answer.

toolz 11y ago
Ahh, well I never claimed it was logicless. I claimed the templates were logicless, and they are. The logic is kept separate inside the processors that you bind to the template.
- mst 11y ago
  Except the -scope part means that the foreach-ness is indicated by the template, so people consider that to be not-logicless. I understood your claim fine. I'm trying to explain why it might be considered false (and I did already say I consider the arguments each way basically hair splitting).
  - toolz 11y ago
    Interesting, I've never imagined an identifier could be labeled as logic. There is no need for a scope, if you mean that the outer identifier is logic. Anything could be the identifier and inside the processor you could define anything to be the outer layer. You could flip data-attr and data-scope just as easily, so I'm not sure where there could ever be an argument that those things represent logic rather than markup. Either way, I _think_ I have a better understand of potential conflicting views. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Can_Not 11y ago

Your example actually looks like a namespace disaster about to happen with "id". Needs some prefixing and/or improved naming conventions. I'm not really how making your template have "less logic" than your example would produce a usable template language.