4 ms·

I am not re-enforcing your statement at all. I think it is absurd to suggest that people will just suddenly start liking hamlet if they put up with it long eno

I am not re-enforcing your statement at all. I think it is absurd to suggest that people will just suddenly start liking hamlet if they put up with it long enough. I used PHP for over a decade, I still think it is an awful template engine. Hamlet has the same problems as PHP, and added a new one. And the main part of your post I was objecting to was "everyone loves it and nobody has ever wanted to use anything else". We wanted to use something else, but once we stop using hamlet, there's nothing left making yesod unique vs happstack and snap, so we just switched instead of complaining.

gregwebs 15y ago
Its not absurd, that has been our experience the majority of the time. Your comment about Yesod having nothing unique shows you never really used Yesod or are very intentionally trolling. For example, Snap does not have type-safe urls and Happstack has a very different approach to its related routing. I could come up with a lot of other examples.
- papsosouid 15y ago
  >Its not absurd, that has been our experience the majority of the time. It is absurd, and saying "I only look at people who like hamlet, and all I see is people who like hamlet" doesn't make it any less absurd. >Your comment about Yesod having nothing unique shows you never really used Yesod or are very intentionally trolling Again, stop with the accusations and consider the very real possibility that not everyone shares your preferences. >For example, Snap does not have type-safe urls and Happstack has a very different approach to its related routing Except that I can use web-routes with either, and end up with the same thing. How exactly does "yesod does a trivial thing like routing slightly differently from the default way snap/happstack do it" become some compelling unique feature? How easy is it to not use yesod's routes? I would actually appreciate if you could list some other examples. We use postgresql, so nothing persistent related was of interest to us. If we don't like the templates, that leaves form handling and some trivial stuff like sessions, routing, etc. Sessions are effectively the same across all three, routing is more flexible in snap/happstack than yesod, and yesod's form handling appears to be "like digestive-functors but dependant on persistent". If you think yesod is a good choice for someone who won't be using persistent or hamlet, then I am genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning.
  - gregwebs 15y ago
    You say you can use type-safe urls, but you aren't actually doing it. And the reason why is it isn't supported end-to-end by your framework. You can't stick one in a Heist template, and your routing code would become more tedious because routing is not completely trivial. But Again, this is just one example. In your case I doubt any benefits you would receive from switching to Yesod would overcome your switching costs. I would love to have a reasonable discussion about it. But you chose to give us zero feedback until we make a 1.0 release announcement (which means we are going to now limit our changes) and then come out of the wood-work and pic at every nit you can find in the comments of the release announcement and state some other framework is better. Stopping by #yesod to discuss, criticizing on the mail list, or helping your own favorite framework reach 1.0 would be a lot more productive. Edit (because I can't reply): Thanks for bringing up issues on IRC. If you ask on the mail list you are guaranteed a thoughtful answer. We push users towards Hamlet in part because of the type-safe url support, but you are definitely welcome to use any template language you want.
    - cies 15y ago
      geek-slapping the troll :) +1 [EDIT]: should not have posted this.
    - papsosouid 15y ago
      >You say you can use type-safe urls, but you aren't actually doing it I'm not because I don't want them. If I did I would be using blaze-html and web-routes. >But Again, this is just one example. I politely and genuinely asked that you provide those other examples, as the one you did provide is obviously bogus. >But you chose to give us zero feedback until we make a 1.0 release announcement Actually, I did ask in IRC about a year ago. And two days after I asked you offered up the same response you have been giving here: "hamlet is perfect and you are wrong for not liking it". I also got similarly slow and unhelpful responses with other issues, like how yesod used to only work on ipv6. >and then come out of the wood-work and pic at every nit you can find in the comments of the release announcement and state some other framework is better If you were a little less defensive and a little more reasonable, you might see that I never said anything of the sort.

gregwebs 15y ago

Its not absurd, that has been our experience the majority of the time. Your comment about Yesod having nothing unique shows you never really used Yesod or are very intentionally trolling. For example, Snap does not have type-safe urls and Happstack has a very different approach to its related routing. I could come up with a lot of other examples.

papsosouid 15y ago
>Its not absurd, that has been our experience the majority of the time. It is absurd, and saying "I only look at people who like hamlet, and all I see is people who like hamlet" doesn't make it any less absurd. >Your comment about Yesod having nothing unique shows you never really used Yesod or are very intentionally trolling Again, stop with the accusations and consider the very real possibility that not everyone shares your preferences. >For example, Snap does not have type-safe urls and Happstack has a very different approach to its related routing Except that I can use web-routes with either, and end up with the same thing. How exactly does "yesod does a trivial thing like routing slightly differently from the default way snap/happstack do it" become some compelling unique feature? How easy is it to not use yesod's routes? I would actually appreciate if you could list some other examples. We use postgresql, so nothing persistent related was of interest to us. If we don't like the templates, that leaves form handling and some trivial stuff like sessions, routing, etc. Sessions are effectively the same across all three, routing is more flexible in snap/happstack than yesod, and yesod's form handling appears to be "like digestive-functors but dependant on persistent". If you think yesod is a good choice for someone who won't be using persistent or hamlet, then I am genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning.
- gregwebs 15y ago
  You say you can use type-safe urls, but you aren't actually doing it. And the reason why is it isn't supported end-to-end by your framework. You can't stick one in a Heist template, and your routing code would become more tedious because routing is not completely trivial. But Again, this is just one example. In your case I doubt any benefits you would receive from switching to Yesod would overcome your switching costs. I would love to have a reasonable discussion about it. But you chose to give us zero feedback until we make a 1.0 release announcement (which means we are going to now limit our changes) and then come out of the wood-work and pic at every nit you can find in the comments of the release announcement and state some other framework is better. Stopping by #yesod to discuss, criticizing on the mail list, or helping your own favorite framework reach 1.0 would be a lot more productive. Edit (because I can't reply): Thanks for bringing up issues on IRC. If you ask on the mail list you are guaranteed a thoughtful answer. We push users towards Hamlet in part because of the type-safe url support, but you are definitely welcome to use any template language you want.
  - cies 15y ago
    geek-slapping the troll :) +1 [EDIT]: should not have posted this.
  - papsosouid 15y ago
    >You say you can use type-safe urls, but you aren't actually doing it I'm not because I don't want them. If I did I would be using blaze-html and web-routes. >But Again, this is just one example. I politely and genuinely asked that you provide those other examples, as the one you did provide is obviously bogus. >But you chose to give us zero feedback until we make a 1.0 release announcement Actually, I did ask in IRC about a year ago. And two days after I asked you offered up the same response you have been giving here: "hamlet is perfect and you are wrong for not liking it". I also got similarly slow and unhelpful responses with other issues, like how yesod used to only work on ipv6. >and then come out of the wood-work and pic at every nit you can find in the comments of the release announcement and state some other framework is better If you were a little less defensive and a little more reasonable, you might see that I never said anything of the sort.