Greg Donald wrote: > > Yup, but it doesn't mean the old way is suddenly wrong. > > > -- > Greg Donald > destiney.com | gregdonald.com
RJS is difficult to test and especially difficult to debug when things go wrong. I would have to agree with Fred that it's just less complicated to stay away from RJS. When you need javascript, just write javascript. And, yes, Marnen has a style of writing that may seem elitist at times, but his arguments serve a purpose. He wants to force a definitive answer if it can exist. I've gotten into many arguments (most positive) with him and in many of those, sometimes I want to yank the strings out of his violin. But, then I calm down and slowly re-read what he's posting and remove any and all tones I might see in the argument. What I got from Marnen's arguments in this topic were that RJS is more complicated, more often it is clearly unnecessary to use, and it's just better to write .. javascript. All of those points are pretty clear and true. Greg, some of your own points are pretty clear as well and if you've perfected your RJS templates and they work great in your projects, I see no reason not to reuse them again, if you are happy with them. However, everything changes and RJS is becoming less used. Just keep that in mind. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
