Dave Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I got the following email in response to my TT2 article. I know nothing
> about EmbPerl so I can't really answer these points. Does anyone who has
> used EmbPerl have any ammo that I can use in my reply?
>
> Dave...
>
> ----- Forwarded message from [snip] -----
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'm curious why you prefer the TT to EmbPerl? It seems that the capabilities
> of TT are a strict subset of EmbPerl. Granted the syntax is arguably slightly
> easier at first than EmbPerl, it doesn't seem worth the lesser functionality
> and forcing of data manipulation in the calling space.
>
> We use EmbPerl extensively at DejaNews and taught the minimal amounts to
> all of the HTML folks designers and programmers. No one had any difficulty
> w/ '@' or '%' so much as the concept of an array or a hash. That is to say
> that no one had syntactic difficulties, just structural.
EmbPerl is basically:
HTML HTML HTML
<Cunning tag>
Perl code, no syntactic sugar, no restrictions, do wtf you like here
</cunning tag>
MORE HTML MORE HTML MORE HTML
The phrase 'fucking stupid idea' springs immediately to mind.
There is *no* way of enforcing model/view/controller separation. No
way of limiting the capabilities of HTML monkeys to do harm, and HTML
tags can look a tad weird when you're using the toolset to, say,
generate DNS zone files.
--
Piers
