4 ms·

Truth be told, it's not too bad considering all it does. Each language is being used for its strengths. Programming at that level requires HTML and Javascript

by jcl 18y ago

Truth be told, it's not too bad considering all it does. Each language is being used for its strengths. Programming at that level requires HTML and Javascript. Python is integrated as part of Mako; calling them separate languages is valid but questionable. (Given that the author is maximizing the number of languages, I'm a little surprised jQuery wasn't included in the list.)

jwilliams 18y ago
Yeah I don't see the beef either - what is the counterpoint "ideal" way of doing it? One language? Because you'd have to select HTML by default... And I'm guessing that might not make for the best user experience. Also surprised they didn't include (implied) CSS.
- jdminhbg 18y ago
  I think you need to at least move the JS out and write it unobtrusively. Sticking 'onClicks' all over the place inside a templating language is a recipe for spaghetti.
  - swombat 18y ago
    Sure, but the point is, to put together any decent web page template, you'll need at least: 1) Your server-side language (e.g. Ruby) 2) Your templating language (e.g. ERB, which may be very similar to 1) 3) HTML 4) CSS 5) Javascript 5 languages is pretty much a minimum unless you're doing something trivial. I'll agree that the onclick should be extracted, but as has been pointed out in other places, this is a quick documentation example, so it is reasonable to use onclick there to keep it brief. PS: Also, perhaps worth pointing out that HTML and CSS aren't actually programming languages... Should they count? probably not.
    - scott_s 18y ago
      They're still languages, so I think they should count, because it still takes a mental context switch when going from any language to another.
    - axod 18y ago
      The number of languages isn't the issue. The issue is putting them all together in the space of a few lines. It's bad organization.
      - jwilliams 18y ago
        Actually just curious - but what is a means of separating them?
cake 18y ago
I wouldn't call jQuery a language. jQuery is JavaScript.
- axod 18y ago
  library/frameworky thing. It's not javascript though. Try getting help with a jQuery question in #javascript...
- jcl 18y ago
  jQuery is JavaScript in approximately the same way CLOS is Common Lisp. Sure, jQuery is implemented in and uses JavaScript, but idiomatic jQuery differs enough from idiomatic JavaScript that it might be considered another language. ...And, if that handwaving fails to convince you, jQuery's selector string format is at least as much a language as the pager formatting string that merits its own language in the article. :)

by jcl 18y ago

jwilliams 18y ago

Yeah I don't see the beef either - what is the counterpoint "ideal" way of doing it? One language? Because you'd have to select HTML by default... And I'm guessing that might not make for the best user experience. Also surprised they didn't include (implied) CSS.

jdminhbg 18y ago
I think you need to at least move the JS out and write it unobtrusively. Sticking 'onClicks' all over the place inside a templating language is a recipe for spaghetti.
- swombat 18y ago
  Sure, but the point is, to put together any decent web page template, you'll need at least: 1) Your server-side language (e.g. Ruby) 2) Your templating language (e.g. ERB, which may be very similar to 1) 3) HTML 4) CSS 5) Javascript 5 languages is pretty much a minimum unless you're doing something trivial. I'll agree that the onclick should be extracted, but as has been pointed out in other places, this is a quick documentation example, so it is reasonable to use onclick there to keep it brief. PS: Also, perhaps worth pointing out that HTML and CSS aren't actually programming languages... Should they count? probably not.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    They're still languages, so I think they should count, because it still takes a mental context switch when going from any language to another.
  - axod 18y ago
    The number of languages isn't the issue. The issue is putting them all together in the space of a few lines. It's bad organization.
    - jwilliams 18y ago
      Actually just curious - but what is a means of separating them?

cake 18y ago

I wouldn't call jQuery a language. jQuery is JavaScript.

axod 18y ago
library/frameworky thing. It's not javascript though. Try getting help with a jQuery question in #javascript...
jcl 18y ago
jQuery is JavaScript in approximately the same way CLOS is Common Lisp. Sure, jQuery is implemented in and uses JavaScript, but idiomatic jQuery differs enough from idiomatic JavaScript that it might be considered another language. ...And, if that handwaving fails to convince you, jQuery's selector string format is at least as much a language as the pager formatting string that merits its own language in the article. :)