in reply to Follow up to RFC: Templating without a System

--shmem Giordano Bruno

Hmm... Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy... are you feeling somewhat martyred?

  • Comment on Re: Follow up to RFC: Templating without a System

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Follow up to RFC: Templating without a System
by shmem (Chancellor) on Jul 03, 2006 at 05:55 UTC
    Uh, no, not at all. Being burned at stake was nothing of Bruno's business. But sometimes I feel like being heretic... ;-)


    _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q/)Oo.  G\        /
                                  /\_/(q    /
    ----------------------------  \__(m.====.(_("always off the crowd"))."
    ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}

      FWIW, I find your critique interesting and look forward to seeing your ideas develop.

      Your detractors are correct about their key points:

      • CPAN is cluttered with templating systems.
      • Writing one's own (bad) templating module seems to be a standard part of a Perl programmer's development. (I wrote one, it sucked. When I undestood CPAN I ditched my sucktastic module as quickly as I could manage.)
      • Buying software is cheaper than writing it. (OK you don't pay for software from CPAN, but the idea is the same--perhaps strengthened since the libraries are free.)

      If you didn't understand these things already, the response to your first post should have informed you of these issues adequately. Continuing to belabor these points is just a waste of time.

      It would be nice to move on and see some critique of your ideas and methods here. Sadly, I don't think this is likely--posts about "My exciting new templating package" touch a raw nerve in these parts.

      I don't fully understand your code examples and don't have the tuits to give them the attention they deserve. However, your stated goals appeal to me (a perlish templating module that does templating only and integrates seamlessly with other perl libraries).

      TGI says moo