[Catalyst] Re: template comparison (was: why not mason

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Perrin Harkins <perrin at elem.com> [2006-11-01 19:35]:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 17:17 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >3. If you’re going to bail out to the Perl layer for complex
> >   stuff (which you should), you might as well pick something
> >   with a more concise markup generation syntax than TT2’s for
> >   the simple stuff. (I admit TT2 fares decently when
> >   producing plain text formats – but I’ve never had to do
> >   that.)
> 
> Something with fewer keywords, you mean? What would that be?
> HTML::Template?

No, HTML::Template is worse. It’s text-centric, just like TT2,
not markup-centric. I’d something along the lines of the TAL
attributes for control flow and markup manipulation. (But the
expressions driving those constructs should be written in Perl.)

> I think the additional abstraction for data access that TT
> provides usually makes for simpler templates and avoids needing
> to code a lot of repetitive data copying in perl, and the
> plugin support makes it a lot easier to deal with formatting
> dates and numbers and handling multi-column lists.

I wonder occasionally if I’d miss the abstraction if I were
writing expressions in Perl, but still, I like it. It’s one of
the things I said are nice about TT2.

I know I wouldn’t miss plugins. If expressions were Perl, I’d
simply be using modules. Plugins are just an artifact of having
an extensive mini language.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>