4 ms·
How have you lost? I write my HTML in a very similar way to the linked article, and I don't think I lose at all. In fact, I much prefer it. It is more consiste
by thecombjelly 16y ago
How have you lost? I write my HTML in a very similar way to the linked article, and I don't think I lose at all. In fact, I much prefer it.
It is more consistent. All of my code is now (in my case) Scheme. This makes it easier to change things as you don't have to go between two different languages. And it is simpler.
My favorite reason is the fact that I can use S-Exps. I no longer have to type the ending tag. I remove the possibility for spelling it wrong, or forgetting the slash. And it takes less space and is easier to get the placement correct, as you just utilize paren matching.
- sgrove 16y agoThe paren matching really is key. I was blown away by how intuitive it is. Previously I had preferred haml, but without paren highlighting it can be hard to tell the depth you're working at relative to another tag. This could be solved by some editor placing arrows showing which tags are parents to your current position, but I don't think that's available (at least not in emacs, sadly), and paren highlighting is. Also, never missing a closed tag, mispellings, abstractions, etc. All very nice. When loading a broken page in chrome, it's crazy how much the html will be transformed, so that it's hard to tell why the page renders a certain way. A bit easier with this approach.
- rapind 16y agoI agree. It looks really clean. I'm not about to throw out haml for it yet, but I'm definitely intrigued.
- dhess 16y agoWhich Scheme libraries/modules are you using?
- thecombjelly 16y agoI use Chicken Scheme with the Awful web framework. I also use the the Chicken Eggs: html-tags (sexp based HTML generation) and html-utils, along with many other supporting modules.
- nickik 16y agoIf you do it this way paredit works for html too :)