Everything Builder-based broke with the move from instance-variable-based content passing to method-based content passing, and the Markaby plugin (at least when I last used it with Rails a month ago or so) required you to use the deprecated @-ways.
What do you mean by this? Could you open a ticket with the bug and assign it to me? I've not been able to figure out what broke (we use Builder templates in many places).
Where are the other users of Builder in Rails? I'll compare to those and figure out what's going on. I thought all Builder had broken. It's good news that that's not the case; the problem may be easier to fix than we imagine.
Evan
Where are the other users of Builder in Rails? I'll compare to those and figure out what's going on. I thought all Builder had broken. It's good news that that's not the case; the problem may be easier to fix than we imagine.
"Where are the other users of Builder in Rails?", what does this mean? Who else uses Builder or how is Builder being used? I'm using Builder for all feeds in 37signals applications. And a few other things. I know a fair number of apps use Builder as the exclusive view technology.
What's the problem you're having with Builder? Could you start a ticket on it? Thanks!
Evan, look at the xml stuff in Rails. It's Jim Weirich's stuff.
I meant "uses", as in "uses in core Rails." I mistyped. I'll look at the XML stuff.
Evan
When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p('hi') instead of '<p>hi</p>'). Ever hear of this module? Didn't think so.
If you want to program HTML, you can't be afraid of it. Wrapping the syntax in another layer doesn't add anything.
What's beautiful about ActiveRecord isn't that it wraps the SQL syntax in another layer, but that it frees me from having to think about SQL in the first place. It knows the tables, columns, how to find the approproate records, etc. - all on a higher level than individual SQL commands.
But if I'm going to be writing a lot of SQL, I'll take SQLs syntax than another layer which is the same exact thing in different words. Same for Markaby.
S. Robert James wrote:
When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p('hi') instead of '<p>hi</p>'). Ever hear of this module? Didn't think so.
If you want to program HTML, you can't be afraid of it. Wrapping the syntax in another layer doesn't add anything.
I don't get the impression that _why wrote Markaby because he's afraid to "program" in HTML.
Markaby and HAML are cool because they let you accomplish more with less code than html. I don't think anyone's advocating replacing HTML or ERb, just making these alternative approaches more accessible.
S. Robert James wrote:
When CGI first came out, people were afraid of HTML. Perl had a module to make it easier to write HTML, by using Perl functions (eg p('hi') instead of '<p>hi</p>'). Ever hear of this module? Didn't think so.
For the record, back when I wrote Perl I used to use CGI.pm all the time, including the HTML helper methods.
Evan
Back in the Perl days I even bought the book on CGI.pm and worked with it at my fingertips - the way I have "Programming Ruby" nearby these days - it was _the_ way to write Web apps using Perl.
Keep up to date with Rails on Twitter and This Week in Rails
Policies: Conduct, License, Maintenance, Security, Trademarks