One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML generation. The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? Scott * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Not sure why it should become "part of the Rails core". Markaby is a lovely way to express code. Having it as a plugin and a choice is fine for me. Wish I could fragment cache Markaby pages tho. Vish On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > generation. > > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > > Scott > > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Markaby is indeed lovely. It seems like a perfect fit to complete the HTML portion of Rails'' "ruby everywhere" philosophy. Part of what''s makes rails so great is the constant effort to replace old mechanisms when more expressive or elegant solutions are found - like David''s most recent post on start_form_tag. I''ve seen other developer groups take a "what we have now is good enough" attitude towards changing existing features for what seem like relatively modest gains in elegance. What they forget is that routinely taking the 5% more elegant path makes the difference between an iPod and a Dell DJ. Markaby could stay a plugin, but there it would stay, waiting to be discovered by developers who are already half way done writing their views in ERB. Actively adopting and encouraging the most elegant solutions makes Rails what it is, and it seems like Markaby is another such opportunity. Scott Vishnu Gopal wrote:> Not sure why it should become "part of the Rails core". Markaby is a > lovely way to express code. Having it as a plugin and a choice is fine > for me. Wish I could fragment cache Markaby pages tho. > > Vish > > On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > > generation. > > > > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to > > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > > > > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > > > > Scott > > > > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ > > > > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Personnaly I''d rather not see markaby become the default way to render templates in Rails. Just one person''s opnion. -Anthony On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Markaby is indeed lovely. It seems like a perfect fit to complete the > HTML portion of Rails'' "ruby everywhere" philosophy. > > Part of what''s makes rails so great is the constant effort to replace > old mechanisms when more expressive or elegant solutions are found - > like David''s most recent post on start_form_tag. I''ve seen other > developer groups take a "what we have now is good enough" attitude > towards changing existing features for what seem like relatively modest > gains in elegance. What they forget is that routinely taking the 5% > more elegant path makes the difference between an iPod and a Dell DJ. > > Markaby could stay a plugin, but there it would stay, waiting to be > discovered by developers who are already half way done writing their > views in ERB. Actively adopting and encouraging the most elegant > solutions makes Rails what it is, and it seems like Markaby is another > such opportunity. > > Scott > > Vishnu Gopal wrote: > > Not sure why it should become "part of the Rails core". Markaby is a > > lovely way to express code. Having it as a plugin and a choice is fine > > for me. Wish I could fragment cache Markaby pages tho. > > > > Vish > > > > On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > > > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > > > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > > > generation. > > > > > > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to > > > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > > > > > > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > > > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > > > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > > > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > > > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- Email: anthonyeden-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cell: 808 782-5046 Current Location: Melbourne, FL --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 11/14/06, Anthony Eden <anthonyeden-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Personnaly I''d rather not see markaby become the default way to render > templates in Rails. Just one person''s opnion.What do you mean by "become the default?" That it becomes the templating language the scaffold templates use? Which markup is used in your own files depends only on the filename of the view. Personally, I''d like to see Markaby officially sponsored. I enjoy using it more than eRB, and if it were an "official" option, then I could use it without worrying about people who must use my code in the future. I also feel that it enhances code readability in many cases, which is handy when having to read someone else''s code.> -AnthonySincerely, Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/ http://GadgetLife.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
A slightly different approach is Haml (http://unspace.ca/discover/haml/). It''s a bit less down-to-the metal than Markaby, but much more likely to create valid XHTML documents than ERB. D. Scott Brown wrote:> > > Markaby is indeed lovely. It seems like a perfect fit to complete the > HTML portion of Rails'' "ruby everywhere" philosophy. > > Part of what''s makes rails so great is the constant effort to replace > old mechanisms when more expressive or elegant solutions are found - > like David''s most recent post on start_form_tag. I''ve seen other > developer groups take a "what we have now is good enough" attitude > towards changing existing features for what seem like relatively modest > gains in elegance. What they forget is that routinely taking the 5% > more elegant path makes the difference between an iPod and a Dell DJ. > > Markaby could stay a plugin, but there it would stay, waiting to be > discovered by developers who are already half way done writing their > views in ERB. Actively adopting and encouraging the most elegant > solutions makes Rails what it is, and it seems like Markaby is another > such opportunity. > > Scott > > Vishnu Gopal wrote: >> Not sure why it should become "part of the Rails core". Markaby is a >> lovely way to express code. Having it as a plugin and a choice is fine >> for me. Wish I could fragment cache Markaby pages tho. >> >> Vish >> >> On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > >> > One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of >> > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby >> > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML >> > generation. >> > >> > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to >> > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? >> > >> > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets >> > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The >> > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and >> > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level >> > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? >> > >> > Scott >> > >> > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Rails--Markaby%2C-ERB%2C-and-the-rails-lingua-franca-tf2624581.html#a7350506 Sent from the RubyOnRails Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Is it me, or does Haml look just like Markaby but with rigid whitespace requirements, arbitrary syntax identifiers, and without the benefit being pure Ruby? // Haml: .tabs %ul.navigation %li= link_to ''Member Approval'', member_admin_url %li= link_to ''User Management'', user_admin_url, :class => ''selected'' # Markaby: div.tabs do ul.navigation do li link_to ''Member Approval'', member_admin_url li link_to ''User Management'', user_admin_url, :class => ''selected'' Let me know if I''ve missed something cool that Haml can do. s.ross wrote:> A slightly different approach is Haml (http://unspace.ca/discover/haml/). > It''s a bit less down-to-the metal than Markaby, but much more likely to > create valid XHTML documents than ERB. > > > > D. Scott Brown wrote: > > > > > > Markaby is indeed lovely. It seems like a perfect fit to complete the > > HTML portion of Rails'' "ruby everywhere" philosophy. > > > > Part of what''s makes rails so great is the constant effort to replace > > old mechanisms when more expressive or elegant solutions are found - > > like David''s most recent post on start_form_tag. I''ve seen other > > developer groups take a "what we have now is good enough" attitude > > towards changing existing features for what seem like relatively modest > > gains in elegance. What they forget is that routinely taking the 5% > > more elegant path makes the difference between an iPod and a Dell DJ. > > > > Markaby could stay a plugin, but there it would stay, waiting to be > > discovered by developers who are already half way done writing their > > views in ERB. Actively adopting and encouraging the most elegant > > solutions makes Rails what it is, and it seems like Markaby is another > > such opportunity. > > > > Scott > > > > Vishnu Gopal wrote: > >> Not sure why it should become "part of the Rails core". Markaby is a > >> lovely way to express code. Having it as a plugin and a choice is fine > >> for me. Wish I could fragment cache Markaby pages tho. > >> > >> Vish > >> > >> On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > >> > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > >> > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > >> > generation. > >> > > >> > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to > >> > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > >> > > >> > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > >> > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > >> > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > >> > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > >> > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > >> > > >> > Scott > >> > > >> > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Rails--Markaby%2C-ERB%2C-and-the-rails-lingua-franca-tf2624581.html#a7350506 > Sent from the RubyOnRails Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
D. Scott Brown wrote:> One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > generation. > > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby to > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > > Scott > > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/Well, I guess that puts the last nail in the coffin of my youth. I''m officially an "old guy" now. This past weekend I noticed that the cheerleaders on the Saturday college games look "too young", and now I just noticed that when ANYONE tries to change ANYTHING, I get an immediate tightening of the "cheeks" and an impulse to yell out "No!". :) jp -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
The main difference from my perspective -- and I''m not incredibly familiar with Markaby -- is that Haml is less like Ruby and more like the outline for your DOM. Markaby *is* Ruby, and that''s good. I can''t say which is better. I''ve found writing Haml is way more productive than writing .rhtml templates. The question is, how do Haml and Markaby compare? It''s my understanding that for each Markaby "do" you need an "end". Haml doesn''t require this. In fact, you can do this: - content_for :title do My Fine Charts - form_tag do %p Specify date range and projects for reporting. %p Begin date (yyyy/mm/dd): = text_field_tag :begin_date %p End date (yyyy/mm/dd): = text_field_tag :begin_date %p Project: = select_tag :project, options_for_select(Project.new.project_map) %p= submit_tag ''draw new chart'' %img{:src => @image_url, :alt => ''Chart''} Notice that the form_tag automagically closed itself? Maybe Markaby does this even cooler. I don''t know. Haml is just working well for me right now so I thought I''d mention it in this context. D. Scott Brown wrote:> > > Is it me, or does Haml look just like Markaby but with rigid whitespace > requirements, arbitrary syntax identifiers, and without the benefit > being pure Ruby? > > // Haml: > .tabs > %ul.navigation > %li= link_to ''Member Approval'', member_admin_url > %li= link_to ''User Management'', user_admin_url, > :class => ''selected'' > > # Markaby: > div.tabs do > ul.navigation do > li link_to ''Member Approval'', member_admin_url > li link_to ''User Management'', user_admin_url, > :class => ''selected'' > > Let me know if I''ve missed something cool that Haml can do. > > s.ross wrote: >> A slightly different approach is Haml (http://unspace.ca/discover/haml/). >> It''s a bit less down-to-the metal than Markaby, but much more likely to >> create valid XHTML documents than ERB. >> >> >> >> D. Scott Brown wrote: >> > >> > >> > Markaby is indeed lovely. It seems like a perfect fit to complete the >> > HTML portion of Rails'' "ruby everywhere" philosophy. >> > >> > Part of what''s makes rails so great is the constant effort to replace >> > old mechanisms when more expressive or elegant solutions are found - >> > like David''s most recent post on start_form_tag. I''ve seen other >> > developer groups take a "what we have now is good enough" attitude >> > towards changing existing features for what seem like relatively modest >> > gains in elegance. What they forget is that routinely taking the 5% >> > more elegant path makes the difference between an iPod and a Dell DJ. >> > >> > Markaby could stay a plugin, but there it would stay, waiting to be >> > discovered by developers who are already half way done writing their >> > views in ERB. Actively adopting and encouraging the most elegant >> > solutions makes Rails what it is, and it seems like Markaby is another >> > such opportunity. >> > >> > Scott >> > >> > Vishnu Gopal wrote: >> >> Not sure why it should become "part of the Rails core". Markaby is a >> >> lovely way to express code. Having it as a plugin and a choice is fine >> >> for me. Wish I could fragment cache Markaby pages tho. >> >> >> >> Vish >> >> >> >> On 11/14/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft >> of >> >> > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby >> >> > (ActiveRecord, RJS). Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML >> >> > generation. >> >> > >> >> > The natural question then, is what possibility is there for Markaby >> to >> >> > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? >> >> > >> >> > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets >> >> > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The >> >> > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, >> and >> >> > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low >> level >> >> > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? >> >> > >> >> > Scott >> >> > >> >> > * see http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/-Rails--Markaby%2C-ERB%2C-and-the-rails-lingua-franca-tf2624581.html#a7350506 >> Sent from the RubyOnRails Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > >-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Rails--Markaby%2C-ERB%2C-and-the-rails-lingua-franca-tf2624581.html#a7351814 Sent from the RubyOnRails Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 11/14/06, s.ross <cwdinfo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > > The main difference from my perspective -- and I''m not incredibly familiar > with Markaby -- is that Haml is less like Ruby and more like the outline > for > your DOM. Markaby *is* Ruby, and that''s good. I can''t say which is better. > >+1 for Haml Markaby is great too, but when writing a view template it helps to think in terms of how the DOM will be structured. -- "Impossible is nothing." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Haml also has various handy built-in ways to generate doctypes, preserve whitespace, and stuff like that. In addition, unlike Markaby, Haml is at its core independent of XHTML... it can be used just as easily to generate any sort of XML-based document. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Haml developer... but this is *because*, not *why*, I''m so fond of the language. On Nov 14, 9:00 pm, zer0halo <zeroh...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 11/14/06, s.ross <cwdi...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Markaby is great too, but when writing a view template it helps to think in > terms of how the DOM will be structured. > > -- > "Impossible is nothing."--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Haml education and praise is nice, but does anyone have more opinions on Markaby becoming an officially-supported language for Rails templates? I have nothing against Haml, but this topic started with question about extending Ruby to the view layer with Markaby. Comparisons with Haml are important, but not to this discussion unless you feel like there is not enough room for two non-eRB templating languages in Rails! Sincerely, Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/ http://GadgetLife.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I, personally, would like to see something other than eRuby be the default for Rails. Of course, I''d prefer Haml, but I think it would be feasible to have both Markaby and Haml available. Even just Markaby would be better than eRuby. The basic point is that eRuby is a break with Rails'' elegance, and that should be addressed. On Nov 15, 1:19 am, "Tom Lieber" <all...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Haml education and praise is nice, but does anyone have more opinions > on Markaby becoming an officially-supported language for Rails > templates? > > I have nothing against Haml, but this topic started with question > about extending Ruby to the view layer with Markaby. Comparisons with > Haml are important, but not to this discussion unless you feel like > there is not enough room for two non-eRB templating languages in > Rails! > > Sincerely, > > Tom Lieberhttp://AllTom.com/http://GadgetLife.org/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Well if you''ve used Markaby a lot, the fact that it doesn''t have a <% %> as opposed to a <%= %> equivalent sometimes seriously sucks. xhtml-careful branch or no, calling to_s on something just to make it work the way I want to is inelegant and un-rails-ish. (I can also rant on about how Camping''s meta-magic break simple Ruby stuff like Constants inside it''s views and controllers). Beside Markaby is slower than ERb too. That should settle the point if anything. Rendering in rails as it is, is slow. Vish On 11/15/06, Nex3 <Nex342-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I, personally, would like to see something other than eRuby be the > default for Rails. Of course, I''d prefer Haml, but I think it would be > feasible to have both Markaby and Haml available. Even just Markaby > would be better than eRuby. The basic point is that eRuby is a break > with Rails'' elegance, and that should be addressed. > > On Nov 15, 1:19 am, "Tom Lieber" <all...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Haml education and praise is nice, but does anyone have more opinions > > on Markaby becoming an officially-supported language for Rails > > templates? > > > > I have nothing against Haml, but this topic started with question > > about extending Ruby to the view layer with Markaby. Comparisons with > > Haml are important, but not to this discussion unless you feel like > > there is not enough room for two non-eRB templating languages in > > Rails! > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Tom Lieberhttp://AllTom.com/http://GadgetLife.org/ > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
My bad, I interpreted the initial messages in the thread wrong. So let me rephrase: I don''t see the need for another HTML template language in Rails. But that''s just my opinion. V/r Anthony On 11/14/06, Tom Lieber <alltom-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On 11/14/06, Anthony Eden <anthonyeden-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Personnaly I''d rather not see markaby become the default way to render > > templates in Rails. Just one person''s opnion. > > What do you mean by "become the default?" That it becomes the > templating language the scaffold templates use? Which markup is used > in your own files depends only on the filename of the view. > > Personally, I''d like to see Markaby officially sponsored. I enjoy > using it more than eRB, and if it were an "official" option, then I > could use it without worrying about people who must use my code in the > future. I also feel that it enhances code readability in many cases, > which is handy when having to read someone else''s code. > > > -Anthony > > Sincerely, > > Tom Lieber > http://AllTom.com/ > http://GadgetLife.org/ > > > >-- Email: anthonyeden-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cell: 808 782-5046 Current Location: Melbourne, FL --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Vish, I think that problem is being resolved in an upcoming release. Let''s refocus this thread back on the original question: What future possibility is there for Markaby (or Haml) be ''blessed'' as an official alternative to ERb? Scott Vishnu Gopal wrote:> Well if you''ve used Markaby a lot, the fact that it doesn''t have a <% > %> as opposed to a <%= %> equivalent sometimes seriously sucks. > xhtml-careful branch or no, calling to_s on something just to make it > work the way I want to is inelegant and un-rails-ish. (I can also rant > on about how Camping''s meta-magic break simple Ruby stuff like > Constants inside it''s views and controllers). > > Beside Markaby is slower than ERb too. That should settle the point if > anything. Rendering in rails as it is, is slow. > > Vish > > On 11/15/06, Nex3 <Nex342-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > I, personally, would like to see something other than eRuby be the > > default for Rails. Of course, I''d prefer Haml, but I think it would be > > feasible to have both Markaby and Haml available. Even just Markaby > > would be better than eRuby. The basic point is that eRuby is a break > > with Rails'' elegance, and that should be addressed. > > > > On Nov 15, 1:19 am, "Tom Lieber" <all...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Haml education and praise is nice, but does anyone have more opinions > > > on Markaby becoming an officially-supported language for Rails > > > templates? > > > > > > I have nothing against Haml, but this topic started with question > > > about extending Ruby to the view layer with Markaby. Comparisons with > > > Haml are important, but not to this discussion unless you feel like > > > there is not enough room for two non-eRB templating languages in > > > Rails! > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Tom Lieberhttp://AllTom.com/http://GadgetLife.org/ > > > > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I guess as the inventor of one of the alternatives I should pipe in at this point. I don''t think any alternative languages should be included in rails-core. They should be plugins. What I *would* like to see, is having the markaby and haml repositories added to the default plugin-repository list so that you can easily install them. ./script/plugin install markaby ./script/plugin install haml But, that''s not even required. I think its most important that rails remains focused and clean of any extra-code. Both _why and myself created our languages to be independent of rails too, so that would be odd to make it an official part. Just my two cents. -hampton. On 11/15/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Brown-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Vish, I think that problem is being resolved in an upcoming release. > > Let''s refocus this thread back on the original question: > What future possibility is there for Markaby (or Haml) be ''blessed'' as > an official alternative to ERb? > > Scott > > Vishnu Gopal wrote: > > Well if you''ve used Markaby a lot, the fact that it doesn''t have a <% > > %> as opposed to a <%= %> equivalent sometimes seriously sucks. > > xhtml-careful branch or no, calling to_s on something just to make it > > work the way I want to is inelegant and un-rails-ish. (I can also rant > > on about how Camping''s meta-magic break simple Ruby stuff like > > Constants inside it''s views and controllers). > > > > Beside Markaby is slower than ERb too. That should settle the point if > > anything. Rendering in rails as it is, is slow. > > > > Vish > > > > On 11/15/06, Nex3 <Nex342-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > I, personally, would like to see something other than eRuby be the > > > default for Rails. Of course, I''d prefer Haml, but I think it would be > > > feasible to have both Markaby and Haml available. Even just Markaby > > > would be better than eRuby. The basic point is that eRuby is a break > > > with Rails'' elegance, and that should be addressed. > > > > > > On Nov 15, 1:19 am, "Tom Lieber" <all...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > Haml education and praise is nice, but does anyone have more opinions > > > > on Markaby becoming an officially-supported language for Rails > > > > templates? > > > > > > > > I have nothing against Haml, but this topic started with question > > > > about extending Ruby to the view layer with Markaby. Comparisons with > > > > Haml are important, but not to this discussion unless you feel like > > > > there is not enough room for two non-eRB templating languages in > > > > Rails! > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Tom Lieberhttp://AllTom.com/http://GadgetLife.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I don''t think Markaby needs to be in core. Core seems to need some changes though in order for ActionView to work well with Builder. Everything Builder-based broke with the move from instance-variable-based content passing to method-based content passing, and the Markaby plugin (at least when I last used it with Rails a month ago or so) required you to use the deprecated @-ways. What changes would these be? If someone could give me details I would be willing to work on a patch. Markaby is super-productive for me and I really like having every Ruby power available to me for constructing the layout (no business logic in the views here). Evan Weaver (PS. Back in the day I thought you could get in the default plugin repository by adding yourself to the wiki. Is that no longer true?) On Nov 15, 10:05 am, Hampton <hcat...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I guess as the inventor of one of the alternatives I should pipe in at > this point. I don''t think any alternative languages should be included > in rails-core. They should be plugins. > > What I *would* like to see, is having themarkabyand haml > repositories added to the default plugin-repository list so that you > can easily install them. > > ./script/plugin installmarkaby > ./script/plugin install haml > > But, that''s not even required. I think its most important that rails > remains focused and clean of any extra-code. Both _why and myself > created our languages to be independent of rails too, so that would be > odd to make it an official part. > > Just my two cents. > > -hampton. > > On 11/15/06, D. Scott Brown <D.Scott.Br...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > Vish, I think that problem is being resolved in an upcoming release. > > > Let''s refocus this thread back on the original question: > > What future possibility is there forMarkaby(or Haml) be ''blessed'' as > > an official alternative to ERb? > > > Scott > > > Vishnu Gopal wrote: > > > Well if you''ve usedMarkabya lot, the fact that it doesn''t have a <% > > > %> as opposed to a <%= %> equivalent sometimes seriously sucks. > > > xhtml-careful branch or no, calling to_s on something just to make it > > > work the way I want to is inelegant and un-rails-ish. (I can also rant > > > on about how Camping''s meta-magic break simple Ruby stuff like > > > Constants inside it''s views and controllers). > > > > BesideMarkabyis slower than ERb too. That should settle the point if > > > anything. Rendering in rails as it is, is slow. > > > > Vish > > > > On 11/15/06, Nex3 <Nex...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > I, personally, would like to see something other than eRuby be the > > > > default for Rails. Of course, I''d prefer Haml, but I think it would be > > > > feasible to have bothMarkabyand Haml available. Even justMarkaby > > > > would be better than eRuby. The basic point is that eRuby is a break > > > > with Rails'' elegance, and that should be addressed. > > > > > On Nov 15, 1:19 am, "Tom Lieber" <all...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > Haml education and praise is nice, but does anyone have more opinions > > > > > onMarkabybecoming an officially-supported language for Rails > > > > > templates? > > > > > > I have nothing against Haml, but this topic started with question > > > > > about extending Ruby to the view layer withMarkaby. Comparisons with > > > > > Haml are important, but not to this discussion unless you feel like > > > > > there is not enough room for two non-eRB templating languages in > > > > > Rails! > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Tom Lieberhttp://AllTom.com/http://GadgetLife.org/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I can understand the arguments for having Markaby included in the core rails. It seems to be the closest way of maintaining the purest Ruby environment so I imagine it could be added to the package. However, there is hardly no documentation on Markaby and even though the learning curve is small a newbie can get frustrated pretty quickly. Its all in the details... On Nov 13, 2:17 pm, "D. Scott Brown" <D.Scott.Br...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > (ActiveRecord, RJS).Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > generation. > > The natural question then, is what possibility is there forMarkabyto > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > > Scott > > * seehttp://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I can understand the arguments for having Markaby included in the core rails. It seems to be the closest way of maintaining the purest Ruby environment so I imagine it could be added to the package. However, there is hardly any documentation on Markaby and even though the learning curve is small a newbie can get frustrated pretty quickly. Its all in the details... On Nov 13, 2:17 pm, "D. Scott Brown" <D.Scott.Br...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> One of the tenets of rails seems to be abstracting most of the cruft of > web development (SQL, javascript) into pure, elegant ruby > (ActiveRecord, RJS).Markaby* appears to do the same for HTML > generation. > > The natural question then, is what possibility is there forMarkabyto > become, in the future, an official part of the rails core? > > The arguments against this are that ERB is good enough, or gets > developers closer to the HTML being generated by the engine. The > counterpoints are that rails is about elegance in web development, and > improving productivity by letting developers stay as high or low level > as the situation demands. What are your thoughts? > > Scott > > * seehttp://code.whytheluckystiff.net/markaby/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> I guess as the inventor of one of the alternatives I should pipe in at > this point. I don''t think any alternative languages should be included > in rails-core. They should be plugins.Indeed. Rails already includes ERb and Builder (which is a pure-Ruby view tech) templates and there are no plans to include more in core.> What I *would* like to see, is having the markaby and haml > repositories added to the default plugin-repository list so that you > can easily install them.There''s a new plugin repository underway that''ll make this happen. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Everything Builder-based broke with the move from > instance-variable-based content passing to method-based content > passing, and the Markaby plugin (at least when I last used it with > Rails a month ago or so) required you to use the deprecated @-ways.What do you mean by this? Could you open a ticket with the bug and assign it to me? I''ve not been able to figure out what broke (we use Builder templates in many places). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Where are the other users of Builder in Rails? I''ll compare to those and figure out what''s going on. I thought all Builder had broken. It''s good news that that''s not the case; the problem may be easier to fix than we imagine. Evan On Nov 20, 11:59 am, "DHH" <david.heineme...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Everything Builder-based broke with the move from > > instance-variable-based content passing to method-based content > > passing, and the Markaby plugin (at least when I last used it with > > Rails a month ago or so) required you to use the deprecated @-ways.What do you mean by this? Could you open a ticket with the bug and > assign it to me? I''ve not been able to figure out what broke (we use > Builder templates in many places).--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Where are the other users of Builder in Rails? I''ll compare to those > and figure out what''s going on. I thought all Builder had broken. It''s > good news that that''s not the case; the problem may be easier to fix > than we imagine."Where are the other users of Builder in Rails?", what does this mean? Who else uses Builder or how is Builder being used? I''m using Builder for all feeds in 37signals applications. And a few other things. I know a fair number of apps use Builder as the exclusive view technology. What''s the problem you''re having with Builder? Could you start a ticket on it? Thanks! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Evan, look at the xml stuff in Rails. It''s Jim Weirich''s stuff. On Nov 20, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Evan wrote:> > > Where are the other users of Builder in Rails? I''ll compare to those > and figure out what''s going on. I thought all Builder had broken. It''s > good news that that''s not the case; the problem may be easier to fix > than we imagine. > > Evan > > On Nov 20, 11:59 am, "DHH" <david.heineme...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> Everything Builder-based broke with the move from >>> instance-variable-based content passing to method-based content >>> passing, and the Markaby plugin (at least when I last used it with >>> Rails a month ago or so) required you to use the deprecated @- >>> ways.What do you mean by this? Could you open a ticket with the >>> bug and >> assign it to me? I''ve not been able to figure out what broke (we use >> Builder templates in many places). > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I meant "uses", as in "uses in core Rails." I mistyped. I''ll look at the XML stuff. Evan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p(''hi'') instead of ''<p>hi</p>''). Ever hear of this module? Didn''t think so. If you want to program HTML, you can''t be afraid of it. Wrapping the syntax in another layer doesn''t add anything. What''s beautiful about ActiveRecord isn''t that it wraps the SQL syntax in another layer, but that it frees me from having to think about SQL in the first place. It knows the tables, columns, how to find the approproate records, etc. - all on a higher level than individual SQL commands. But if I''m going to be writing a lot of SQL, I''ll take SQLs syntax than another layer which is the same exact thing in different words. Same for Markaby. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
S. Robert James wrote:> When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module > to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p(''hi'') > instead of ''<p>hi</p>''). Ever hear of this module? Didn''t think so. > > If you want to program HTML, you can''t be afraid of it. Wrapping the > syntax in another layer doesn''t add anything.I don''t get the impression that _why wrote Markaby because he''s afraid to "program" in HTML. Markaby and HAML are cool because they let you accomplish more with less code than html. I don''t think anyone''s advocating replacing HTML or ERb, just making these alternative approaches more accessible. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
S. Robert James wrote:> When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module > to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p(''hi'') > instead of ''<p>hi</p>''). Ever hear of this module? Didn''t think so.For the record, back when I wrote Perl I used to use CGI.pm all the time, including the HTML helper methods. Evan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Back in the Perl days I even bought the book on CGI.pm and worked with it at my fingertips - the way I have "Programming Ruby" nearby these days - it was _the_ way to write Web apps using Perl. On 21/11/06, Evan <eweaver-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > S. Robert James wrote: > > When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module > > to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p(''hi'') > > instead of ''<p>hi</p>''). Ever hear of this module? Didn''t think so. > > For the record, back when I wrote Perl I used to use CGI.pm all the > time, including the HTML helper methods. > > Evan > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---