3 ms·

Very interesting information. Definitely going to have a look at a few gems after this. Thanks for sharing. On a side note, HAML is the best example of technol

by nahname 14y ago

Very interesting information. Definitely going to have a look at a few gems after this. Thanks for sharing. On a side note, HAML is the best example of technology for technologies sake. It adds a small amount of value while adding the complexity of a new language. I've never felt the "juice was worth the squeeze" so to speak. Curious as to why it has the following that it does.

Groxx 14y ago
Never making invalid markup is handy, and if you have easy access to attributes you can: .a_class{ attrs } some text which can save a lot when you would otherwise have to write: <div class="a_class" attr="value" another="val" dont="forget to escape"> some text </div> The never-invalid markup is probably the bigger win, though. Primitive type checking for your HTML is arguably better than none. What I would really like is something similarly terse but faster - HAML can get pretty slow.
- nahname 14y ago
  I cannot say I have had many problems with incorrect HTML. Since using HAML, I have had tabbing issues, inline javascript issues, a new syntax to learn (and translate). The last one is my main issue. 80% of your time spent with HTML is in the browser, the mental translation is more of a tax than anything. I have used HAML on three projects and it always feels like it gets in the way more than it helps.
  - Groxx 14y ago
    On a couple big projects, I've generally liked it - since there's less boilerplate ("<>" and closing tags in particular) and the primary identifying bits (- or %ul or .class) are at the far left of each line, I can generally read things more quickly and more easily than e.g. straight HTML or ERB's <%= %>. But that comes from rather extended use, I'm definitely not claiming it's the best. There are plenty of things I dislike about HAML, but it does mean I read less, and I spend quite a bit of time reading and writing view code. Mind if I ask if you've done PHP programming? If you have, ERB's <% would seem to be a tax you've already paid.
    - nahname 14y ago
      I am from a dotnet background originally, only created one php app back in my school days. For me, it is less about liking ERB and more about preferring the medium I am working in (HTML). If I could pick anything, it would be razor. It is similar to ERB in that you use HTML, but the painful percent brackets are replaced by a single @. Code blocks are as follows: @{ // code } another example: <div>@user.Name</div> It feels very natural to write and is simple to read/pickup. Now that microsoft has open sourced it, someone should make a version in ruby. Might be a good side project for me actually :)
- rhizome 14y ago
  <%= content_tag :div, "some text", class: 'foo', html: attrs %> to keep it consistent with your haml example
- kjell 14y ago
  https://github.com/stonean/slim#benchmarks https://github.com/stonean/slim#benchmarks Slim is mentioned in the writeup. It's faster than Haml. I like it better.

by nahname 14y ago

Groxx 14y ago

Never making invalid markup is handy, and if you have easy access to attributes you can: .a_class{ attrs } some text which can save a lot when you would otherwise have to write: <div class="a_class" attr="value" another="val" dont="forget to escape"> some text </div> The never-invalid markup is probably the bigger win, though. Primitive type checking for your HTML is arguably better than none. What I would really like is something similarly terse but faster - HAML can get pretty slow.

nahname 14y ago
I cannot say I have had many problems with incorrect HTML. Since using HAML, I have had tabbing issues, inline javascript issues, a new syntax to learn (and translate). The last one is my main issue. 80% of your time spent with HTML is in the browser, the mental translation is more of a tax than anything. I have used HAML on three projects and it always feels like it gets in the way more than it helps.
- Groxx 14y ago
  On a couple big projects, I've generally liked it - since there's less boilerplate ("<>" and closing tags in particular) and the primary identifying bits (- or %ul or .class) are at the far left of each line, I can generally read things more quickly and more easily than e.g. straight HTML or ERB's <%= %>. But that comes from rather extended use, I'm definitely not claiming it's the best. There are plenty of things I dislike about HAML, but it does mean I read less, and I spend quite a bit of time reading and writing view code. Mind if I ask if you've done PHP programming? If you have, ERB's <% would seem to be a tax you've already paid.
  - nahname 14y ago
    I am from a dotnet background originally, only created one php app back in my school days. For me, it is less about liking ERB and more about preferring the medium I am working in (HTML). If I could pick anything, it would be razor. It is similar to ERB in that you use HTML, but the painful percent brackets are replaced by a single @. Code blocks are as follows: @{ // code } another example: <div>@user.Name</div> It feels very natural to write and is simple to read/pickup. Now that microsoft has open sourced it, someone should make a version in ruby. Might be a good side project for me actually :)
rhizome 14y ago
<%= content_tag :div, "some text", class: 'foo', html: attrs %> to keep it consistent with your haml example
kjell 14y ago
https://github.com/stonean/slim#benchmarks https://github.com/stonean/slim#benchmarks Slim is mentioned in the writeup. It's faster than Haml. I like it better.