|
|
| Just another Perl shrine | |
| PerlMonks |
Comment on |
| ( #3333=superdoc: print w/ replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
|
A variant of Greenspun's tenth rule says that any sufficiently mature HTML template language becomes a clunky, ad-hoc variant dialect of its host language. Smarty exposes pretty much all the power of PHP with an even dumber syntax. TT2 does the same for Perl. This is what I don't "get" about template languages. If I want to write my templates in something Turing-complete, then why would I want to learn and use the clunky, ad-hoc language? Why not just write my template in Perl, a language that I already know? This is what I like about Text::Template, and why I choose it over TT2 and friends on the rare occasions I actually need templates. Rather than inventing a new template language, it simply provides a mechanism for embedding Perl in strings, and evaluating those strings. More often though, if I'm outputting HTML rather than treating it as templated text, I tend to prefer to build it up as a DOM tree and then serialize it.
perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'
In reply to Re: HTML::Template Vs Template Toolkit
by tobyink
|
|