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
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.