5 ms·
No examples. Bad name. Why is it better than cl-who and parenscript together? Nice job though. The code is clean.
by kruhft 3y ago
No examples. Bad name. Why is it better than cl-who and parenscript together?
Nice job though. The code is clean.
- medo-bear 3y agoI see examples
- junon 3y agoIf you scroll just a tiny bit there is a large, complete example.
- svetlyak40wt 3y agoSpinneret is better than CL-WHO at least in it's string escaping policy. All values are escaped by default whereas with CL-WHO you need to wrap with CL-WHO:ESC all string values. Thus CL-WHO is vulnerable to XSS attack by default.
- svetlyak40wt 3y agoParenscript is other tool. Mainly it generates Javascript. However it has support for CL-WHO like templating for generating HTML on client side.
- kruhft 3y agoI looked through the code and found some parenscript, or at least something that reminded me of parenscript alot. Just bringing up some history. I don't know the age profile of the developers or readers anymore. Just trying to look smart.