On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is certainly one way to go but personally I'm not at all a fan of > this string literals approach,. For instance if Scala would not have > had built in XML support using XML as string literals Lift would > probably loose some of its attractions... but that's my opinion. > Agreed, XML is baked-in. It's not a DSL built on top of other features. > Furthermore a DSL like language allows better compositionality than > concatenating strings when we want to iteratively add JS code ... for > instance calling the same function multiple times with different > arguments, or collecting code fragments generated by different > application components etc. > There's no guarantee of compositionality for DSLs. You have to design it to be, and it's quite difficult to get right. And then you pretty much reinvent another language. First you have Scala, then you have Javascript, then you have something in between which is FrankenScalaScript. Just my opinion :) > Also it seems to me that your approach (somehow similar with > Velocity's) is more expensive but I admit that this is not at all a > strong argument because we're talking about small javascript fragments > so the delta is negligible. > I would beg to differ but we're so far from any implementation of either to judge performance at this stage. alex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
