3 ms·
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 sp
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoThey'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 agoThe 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 agoActually just curious - but what is a means of separating them?