Nope, but whats wrong with html or something that resembles it closely enough without the whitespace active stuff and extra syntax. I'll give you the answer ...

Nope, but whats wrong with html or something that resembles it closely enough without the whitespace active stuff and extra syntax. I'll give you the answer ... nothing. Haml feels like just an unnecessary abstraction on top of something (html) that was just fine to begin with. But a lot of engineers seem to like it, so I think its great for those people. > So called "front-end engineers" who can't understand haml after 3 minutes have no business calling themselves "front-end engineers" Gotta love the arrogance of the remark :) Remember that there are tons of people that aren't classically trained "engineers" that have to work on apps around the world, lets spare a thought for them ;) More seriously, I don't think the argument is them understanding haml. The problem is the learning curve. Its not that steep but having to look up how to do stuff that you could just type right away from memory in plain html every 5 minutes, slows you down, and people want to move quickly. Theres also the fact that when haml breaks you get a Rails error vs the way html breaks which is that the display just looks all wonky. Lets not underestimate that. > Is HAML really that hard? Again, what are all the objective "benefits" of haml that necessitate having to learn this new abstraction? I can tell you why I use Rails over Cakephp, but what is the problem that haml is trying to solve exactly?