I love this perennial thrash. My 2 cents: don't underestimate the value
of having mobility in the separation of "engineer" and "production" ('HTML
Monkey', as it's been previously referred too, ee ee). Mason's ability to
have components that are all Perl, all FooML or a mix in the two allows
you to decide where to draw that line. I've found that in the real world,
producers have two career paths: one towards design and one towards
technology. I've worked with systems where the technology was rigidly
opaque and there was no way for producers to ease their way into
programming. I've torn down that wall. Simple Perl constructs don't
require careful study of the camel book but if folks _want_ to do
sophisticated things with their data handling, they're not hamstrung
by the constructs of an artificial set of boundaries. That said, I do
insist on having components and classes constructed for re-use -- this is
a concept that even the most novice producer appreciates. And though I'm
not in the business of career counseling, I can (and have) provide a
system that has entry points for anybody in the broad spectrum of skills.
> If I want to make something simple, make it simple! For instance:
>
> <? for ($min..$max) { ?>
> <OPTION> $_
> <? } ?>
>
> > 2) Say what? Are you running a school or trying to things done? Putting
> > raw Perl in your HTML isn't helping you designers is any way I understand.
>
> I always try to teach while having things done. Learning a bit of Perl
> will help the designers as much as learning "raw HTML" instead of using
> just a WYSIWYG tool: they will be more productive.
--
Salon Internet http://www.salon.com/
Manager, Software and Systems "Livin' La Vida Unix!"
Ian Kallen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / AIM: iankallen / Fax: (415) 354-3326
