3 ms·
The former. The first guy that loves Haml a lot has used it on tons of projects, and knows its quirks, has his own clever tricks, etc. Someone else comes along
by nzoschke 15y ago
The former. The first guy that loves Haml a lot has used it on tons of projects, and knows its quirks, has his own clever tricks, etc.
Someone else comes along and has to set up a Ruby environment and learn a new syntax (for layout and templating) just to add a new element to the page. That gets frustrating really quickly.
Haml and its like are not a nightmare at all. I do appreciate the elegance of the resulting code and this offers a lot of benefits. It's just hard to get everyone to buy into it on a team.
- danenania 15y agoI don't really get this. Conceptually, haml IS html. Sure the syntax is a bit different, but it's hard for me to imagine that a decent programmer would get hung up on this. Same with coffeescript really. If a cleaner syntax on top of a language scares you, you don't really grok the original language all that well in my opinion. There are certainly arguments for sticking with vanilla html/js, like the potential minor hassles of dealing with file conversions and debugging generated code, etc., but fear of a new syntax that can be learned in 15 minutes is a weak one. Edit: I do grant that js to coffeescript is a bit more of a leap than html to haml since coffeescript actually introduces some new language concepts.