On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:16 AM, James Britt
Gour wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:14:15 -0700
>> "Michael" == Michael Snoyman wrote:
Michael> Funny to see this mentioned right now; I'm in the middle of Michael> incorporating it into Yesod. It's most definitely haml-like:
Heh...somehow I've stumbled upon Haml/Sass after researching about static-site generators (StaticMatic supports Haml) and then thought about Haskell...which has brought me to Hamlet. :-)
The wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haml#Implementations) lists severeal implementations, that's why I've asked if Hamlet could be counted as one?
Michael> haml itself allows embedding of arbitrary Ruby code, so that's Michael> not really something I'm interested in here.
Same here. No interest in Ruby.
The use of Ruby is orthogonal to Haml. Ruby implementations allow for inserting Ruby. There's no reason any other implementation has to do that. It's meant to output (x)html. A Haskell version could have inline Haskell. Or not.
I really was saying that I don't want to allow embedding of arbitrary code in templates.
(That said, I can't stand Haml, and it's popularity among Rubyists is depressing. I'd avoid it just as much were it part of any Haskell lib.)
Out of curiosity, why? I've never really used it large-scale before, but it seems to work rather nicely.
Michael