3 ms·
I must say, I'm having a hard time seeing any significant benefits on using CoffeeCup/HAML/Whatever instead of plain old vanilla HTML. I mean, there's a lot mor
by tzaman 14y ago
I must say, I'm having a hard time seeing any significant benefits on using CoffeeCup/HAML/Whatever instead of plain old vanilla HTML. I mean, there's a lot more to frontend development than just HTML, and getting to learn another tool like this (especially in a team) doesn't cut it for me. If you want to speed up, there are alternatives like ZenCoding plugins and whatnot.
I'm using SASS extensively, but I can see the benefits immediately, plus the syntax is almost the same, so there is less cognitive load to switch.
- mntmn 14y agoI think it depends on what you use the HTML for. If you use it for its original purpose, "Hypertext", then vanilla should be fine. If you're writing a GUI-heavy application, HTML becomes more of a "rendering layer" and its semantics tend to play a smaller role (YMMV). So you introduce helpers, builders, abstractions for things like forms, menus and such (see Rails). At that point, the PHP-esque mixing of HTML and code fragments becomes inelegant (again, YMMV), and solutions might be sought for a more readable markup. Bonus: no more closing tags.
- IsaacL 14y agoI agree - don't get me wrong, I can see the value of stuff like HAML, but my experience of using it is that a lot of the time it saves is outweighed by the extra time spent trying to debug the extra abstraction layer.