[Haskell-cafe] Re: [web-devel] A light-weight web framework

[Ricardo Herrmann]

The maintenance nightmare happens when someone uses the embedded language to
specify business logic, and that's entirely the web-{developer,designer}'s
fault. Thus, the problem is not that these languages shouldn't be powerful
enough.

IMHO, a safe approach would be simply not allowing I/O inside templates
(hey, sounds familiar ;-)

On 4/5/07, Maurice Codik <maurice.codik at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A few things, some of which I sort of mentioned in my previous email:
>
> - If I'm already going to commit some time to learn a templating language,
> why dont I just spend that same amount of time learning the little bit of
> haskell I need to make the template work? If thats too much to ask, I can
> just spit out HTML, and have the programmer put in the dynamic parts for me.
> Both of these scenarios seem to be a more efficient use of time.
>
> - Who is the target audience? If its a big organization where there are
> multiple designers and multiple devs, then your approach may work just fine.
> If its the single developer, then something like what David suggested would
> work even better. If its a small team (which may or may not include a
> full-time designer), then something like what I suggested would work best.
> For a web framework for haskell, I would guess that the latter two are much
> more likely.
>
> - Embedding a real programming language in a template already gives you
> power to do what ever you need to do. What if you need to implement some
> logic that the template language doesnt support? In those cases, you're
> usually out of luck and have to move that logic into a controller, where it
> doesnt really belong (assuming its actual display logic, not business
> logic).
>
> - It's really just a matter of taste. Any web framework thats worth using
> should be flexible in its support of view technologies, but come with one
> thats a sensible default.
>
> Maurice
>
> On 4/5/07, Joel Reymont <joelr1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you see anything wrong with the approach I suggested, though?
> >
> > On Apr 5, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Maurice Codik wrote:
> >
> > > That's not necesarily true. Templates where there is mostly markup,
> > > but let you embed code into them using special tags (ex, <% code %
> > > >) are extremely popular and work fairly well. They also keep the
> > > template language simple because there is already a full-powered
> > > programming language thats embedded into it. Good examples of this
> > > method are ERB templates in Rails, JSPs, Perl Mason templates, etc.
> >
> > --
> > http://wagerlabs.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://blog.mauricecodik.com
> _______________________________________________
> web-devel mailing list
> web-devel at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>
>


-- 
Ricardo Guimarães Herrmann
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc,
informally specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common
Lisp"
"Any sufficiently complicated Lisp or Ruby program contains an ad hoc,
informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Haskell"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20070405/98af198e/attachment-0001.htm