5 ms·

I'm pretty sure the article was just trying to compare HAML to a small part of Seaside. ("Seaside packs a lot of ideas into one framework. One innovation [ed. n

I'm pretty sure the article was just trying to compare HAML to a small part of Seaside. ("Seaside packs a lot of ideas into one framework. One innovation [ed. not The primary innovation]: you don't write HTML.") I think the real point wasn't even that Seaside's HTML generation is smart/powerful/fun. It's this: I enjoy programming in Seaside because when I'm programming in Seaside, I'm programming. I'm not wrestling with markup; that's for computers to do. I get the same pleasure out of using HAML.

jamesbritt 18y ago
" I'm programming. I'm not wrestling with markup; that's for computers to do. I get the same pleasure out of using HAML." Anecdotal counterpoint: I'm one of those who has the opposite experience with Haml. It's a constant fight. OTOH, XML/HTML is stupid easy; my editor takes care of the annoying parts, and I never fight with cryptic errors. It's easy to cut-n-paste for assorted sources, and use WYSIWYG editors if and when I want to. I think I could live with Haml (I'm sort of compelled to deal with it since I took over an abandoned Rails project) if it did not use significant indentation. It works ok for small chunks of text, utter pain when there's much nesting going on. The application of the description "terse" is quite on the money. It's not a feature.
mattmcknight 18y ago
It's worse than using Builder for XML templates. Builder rocks- it is much more concise and comprehensible. http://builder.rubyforge.org/ http://builder.rubyforge.org/ xml.form { xml.label "zipcode" xml.input :type => 'text', :name => "zipcode' xml.input :type => 'submit' }