terrible title, this post actually explains how to use Haml the plugin to generate all sorts of content using its existing features like filters properly. The confusion is that "Haml" refers to Haml the plug-in as well as Haml the syntax for generating HTML. The syntax is not ideal for content, and that's why it supports things like inline HTML and markdown filters, just as the outline explains.
Just because they're officially supported, doesn't mean they aren't there to work around the syntax's obvious limitations. I've been tracking Haml's development for a very long time I the history of many of these features is a result of users' frustration with the syntax.
Chris Eppstein isn't writing Reddit linkbait. He's the author of Compass, which shrunk my huge Rails app's templating code by at least 30% and massively, epically improved our stylesheets, allowing us to standardize a sprawling rusty UI on a sane Blueprint grid inside of a week.
I don't like his title either, but he gets to write whatever he wants about Haml.
On Twitter, someone gave an alternate explanation that I'll pass along without agreeing or disagreeing. They suggested the title was a honeytrap to get Haml haters to read the post and then be surreptitiously educated on why that argument against Haml is invalid.
Comments
terrible title, this post actually explains how to use Haml the plugin to generate all sorts of content using its existing features like filters properly. The confusion is that "Haml" refers to Haml the plug-in as well as Haml the syntax for generating HTML. The syntax is not ideal for content, and that's why it supports things like inline HTML and markdown filters, just as the outline explains.
The article could be replaced by the sentence: "Make sure you know about filters before using haml for content."
Filters aren't a "workaround," they are the part of the language for handling content.
http://haml-lang.com/docs/yardoc/file.HAML_REFERENCE.html#fi...
Just because they're officially supported, doesn't mean they aren't there to work around the syntax's obvious limitations. I've been tracking Haml's development for a very long time I the history of many of these features is a result of users' frustration with the syntax.
The title is in the reddit linkbait genre that is becoming increasingly common on HN.
Chris Eppstein isn't writing Reddit linkbait. He's the author of Compass, which shrunk my huge Rails app's templating code by at least 30% and massively, epically improved our stylesheets, allowing us to standardize a sprawling rusty UI on a sane Blueprint grid inside of a week.
I don't like his title either, but he gets to write whatever he wants about Haml.
I disagree. I should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
I stand corrected.
On Twitter, someone gave an alternate explanation that I'll pass along without agreeing or disagreeing. They suggested the title was a honeytrap to get Haml haters to read the post and then be surreptitiously educated on why that argument against Haml is invalid.
Update... That was Chris' explanation!
Well I got caught in that honeytrap, so the title does work.
That's true, but it's also a play on words.
Haml (the syntax) sucks for content. This is a fact.
Haml (the project) provides ample facilities for working around the syntactic limitations.
I stand corrected.