3 ms·
> Neither are particularly hard to learn, assuming you understand HTML and Javascript reasonably well to begin with I disagree. this might be the case for Rail
by trustfundbaby 13y ago
> Neither are particularly hard to learn, assuming you understand HTML and Javascript reasonably well to begin with
I disagree. this might be the case for Rails devs and people familiar with the Rails stack. But I have worked on a large enough team with enough people coming and going with different backgrounds to see more people having difficulties picking up and using haml && coffeescript than just erb/good 'ol javascript.
Sure they'll figure it out eventually, but the learning time adds up, and I haven't seen any actual gains from eventually knowing both of them well enough.
> Both offer non-trivial gains in terms readability of the written code.
Please elaborate on this, because I've seen the opposite. Everybody working on the web knows html and javascript. Usually
having to layer haml and coffeescript on top of that knowledge slows them down unless they've been doing it for long enough
- lowboy 13y agoI don't use Haml much, but I find CS easier to parse visually. There are fewer distracting elements, like braces, brackets, etc. This results in the intention of the code coming through with a louder voice compared to syntax requirements. CS also eliminates boilerplate code like hasOwnproperty() checks, loop variable initialization, null checks on object properties (null soaking), etc. It's visual clutter. I can code in JS just fine, but it looks rather busy compared to CS.
- briandear 13y agoReally Haml is difficult? You need to find a new team. They sound stupid. It takes about a 5 minute explanation to demo Haml.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mcmillion 13y agoIf they don't understand HAML or Slim, then they don't really understand HTML. They may have the syntax memorized, but they aren't seeing the bigger picture. HAML and Slim are just alternate ways of getting at that bigger picture.