Did I just see a syntactic tool derided for being only good at reducing and enhancing syntax? From a Ruby developer?
It's all about expressive code. There's nothing of value in a closing tag. Nothing. No information than cannot be carried with pithy indentation.
And as others explained well, Haml when used in conjunction with scripting languages encourages the removal of controller and model logic from the view layer.
It doesn't try to add anything else to HTML because what the hell would it add? HTML doesn't have lexical scope issues to fix. I can't believe this shoddy piece is blaming a simple tool for simply doing its simple but useful task.
Comments
Did I just see a syntactic tool derided for being only good at reducing and enhancing syntax? From a Ruby developer?
It's all about expressive code. There's nothing of value in a closing tag. Nothing. No information than cannot be carried with pithy indentation.
And as others explained well, Haml when used in conjunction with scripting languages encourages the removal of controller and model logic from the view layer.
It doesn't try to add anything else to HTML because what the hell would it add? HTML doesn't have lexical scope issues to fix. I can't believe this shoddy piece is blaming a simple tool for simply doing its simple but useful task.