Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re: the disadvantages of mini-languages

by Aristotle (Chancellor)
on Feb 05, 2005 at 14:06 UTC ( #428321=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to the disadvantages of mini-languages

This is rather a moot point. Mini-languages suck insofar as they are often restrictive and insufficiently expressive, but whether you use Perl inside your templates or a template-specific language, assuming the language is fairly expressive, is irrelevant.

Think about it: would you write a system kernel in Perl? Or rewrite a very simple Shell script in Perl instead? A complex Perl script in C? Or a Shell script in C? There are more language examples, some already mentioned, like SQL and make.

The fact is that languages are geared toward certain domains. Perl is a decent language for templates (not nearly as annoying as C would be for the purposes of complex Perl scripts, f.ex), but templating-specific languages can still make things easier for writing templates. They just need to be expressive enough to handle the job; something which homegrown templating systems generally fall short of. The Template Toolkit OTOH was designed with an abundance of functionality from the word go, and indeed it does a very good job at what it's made for.

Makeshifts last the longest.

  • Comment on Re: the disadvantages of mini-languages

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://428321]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (9)
As of 2019-10-18 12:44 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?