4 ms·

Writing templates in Lisp, I think, is an awful idea. Template languages have evolved for a long time to include all the things you will probably need. For exa

Writing templates in Lisp, I think, is an awful idea. Template languages have evolved for a long time to include all the things you will probably need. For example, imagine if you want to test some HTML code in a browser. Browser doesn't understand Lisp so you have to write it in HTML. And then you have to convert it to Lisp to use as a template. What a waste of time. There are all king of template languages around. There are editors that can highlight the syntax, there are plugins to write HTML faster. I don't imagine how you justify writing your own template engine. Probably that is just a NIH symdrome. > First, they work on HTML serialization to string instead of HTML semantics as a tree, making it easy to introduce both bugs and security vulnerabilities. This can be easily solved by validating HTML code. > The concepts of "escaping", Tenmplate engines do necessary escaping automatically. For example, in Twig you just write <div>{{ user.getName() }}</div> and don't have to worry about escaping. I guess in Lisp you cannot even write user.getName() because it doesn't have objects. > Views absolutely do need code, and so they should be written in a proper programming language. In my experience, template engines like Twig have enough features. If you need soem complicated logic, you can write a helper function.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Template languages have evolved for a long time to include all the things you will probably need. Which is what turned them into Turing-complete languages that try to pretend they're not. > For example, imagine if you want to test some HTML code in a browser. Browser doesn't understand Lisp so you have to write it in HTML. And then you have to convert it to Lisp to use as a template. What a waste of time. Not much time is wasted, especially that s-exps are faster to write than HTML (especially with editor support). Browsers don't understand templates either, so in both cases you have to do some conversions. I'll give a point to HTML-ish template languages here, but I don't believe the time spent on manually converting large chunks of template code into browser-edible HTML and back is anywhere near the critical path on the project. > This can be easily solved by validating HTML code. That's validating vs. making it literally impossible to emit invalid HTML. > I guess in Lisp you cannot even write user.getName() because it doesn't have objects. Haha. Right. No, Lisp actually has objects. You'd write it as (get-name user), since the syntax for function calls in Lisp is consistent.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> Template languages have evolved for a long time to include all the things you will probably need. Which is what turned them into Turing-complete languages that try to pretend they're not. > For example, imagine if you want to test some HTML code in a browser. Browser doesn't understand Lisp so you have to write it in HTML. And then you have to convert it to Lisp to use as a template. What a waste of time. Not much time is wasted, especially that s-exps are faster to write than HTML (especially with editor support). Browsers don't understand templates either, so in both cases you have to do some conversions. I'll give a point to HTML-ish template languages here, but I don't believe the time spent on manually converting large chunks of template code into browser-edible HTML and back is anywhere near the critical path on the project. > This can be easily solved by validating HTML code. That's validating vs. making it literally impossible to emit invalid HTML. > I guess in Lisp you cannot even write user.getName() because it doesn't have objects. Haha. Right. No, Lisp actually has objects. You'd write it as (get-name user), since the syntax for function calls in Lisp is consistent.