comment on

Template Toolkit is an an entire mini-language which can lead to bad practices and runs slower than most, if not all, of the other template kits while HTML::Template more strictly adheres to the purist idea of what a View RFC:SHOULD be. That sounds like a good thing at first but it hinders you, lacking all but the most simplistic loop controls and unsweetened include directives; and speed in the template layer is rarely a real issue in the full stack of a live web application.

If the Template Toolkit route is appealing to you, you should know that it includes its own caching and dozens of other really nice affordances which will make your development easier, more fun and, if you can restrain yourself from going PHP on your templates, plenty manageable.

:P — see also Template::Alloy for Template (TT2) compatible syntax with some of TT3 too.

If you do want to go PHP on your templates, see Mason. But I keed!

In reply to Re: HTML::Template Vs Template Toolkit by Your Mother
in thread HTML::Template Vs Template Toolkit by Anonymous Monk

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks