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.

(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.)