> [Y]ou should probably get over it and roll with it. I’m not sure that’s what he’s saying: > If people want to displace string templating, figuring out what

> [Y]ou should probably get over it and roll with it. I’m not sure that’s what he’s saying: > If people want to displace string templating, figuring out what those current advantages are and how to duplicate them in alternatives seems likely to be important. But that’s not an interesting objection—if you want to say it, we might as well use that to justify talking about it instead. What is interesting from my point of view is that I can’t see what it would actually mean to “roll with it”. Stop trying to invent something better? Thanks but no thanks. (I’m just a sucker for potentially extremely neat things with a long history of mostly failing—structural editing, live programming, graphical programming... I doubt anybody can reform me at this point.) Try to mitigate problems that result from this? If there ever was something that failed even heavier and in even stupider ways than eliminating string templating, it’s web application firewalls and their ilk. At least I haven’t ever heard of them stopping a determined or even somewhat competent attacker. Try to trick people by doing something that looks like string templating but is in fact syntactic? Worth exploring, but doesn’t really count as rolling with it, I think. The only thing I can imagine here is tainted strings, and those do work, but like the previous option they are hardly seamless. Something else? What?