Jacob Carlborg wrote: > I think you really should give it a try. This is a good place to start:
Cool, thanks! > Don't know why but I think this is verbose and it's more difficult > to visualize how the HTML will look like. That's also a bizarre example... 9/10 times, my code looks more like: auto list = document.getElementById("items-holder"); foreach(item; items) list.addChild("li", item); than the longer thing. If you want to visualize the html, you usually want to look at the html file, since it contains the majority of the structure. > but usually you use the "form_for" or "form_tag" helper that > Rails provides: That's not bad. > Another thing I really like is it's built in support for > rebinding the "this" variable That's easy in Javascript too. It has the Function.apply method built in that makes it as simple as writing a higher order function. I find javascript is easier to use if you think of it as a functional language with procedural elements rather than an object oriented one. > Correct me if I'm wrong but that would require a request for > bascially every function call? Most of them, yes (though calls being passed as arguments to other calls are combined0, but keep in mind a HTTP request does *not* have to go to the server! If your server side code gives the appropriate cache headers, the ajax responses are cached too. There's a good chance you have to hit the server anyway for db access too... > I don't like that, and I don't like the inline javascript. Inline javascript was done here for convenience. You're free to do it in a separate file just like any other script.