11–20 of 74 posts
There's just something wrong about creating a language with a language to produce about in a third language. As Brian Kernighan told Dustin Hoffman one time, "Learn to code!".
How did Hoffman and Kernighan meet?
I don't buy this. The problem with HTML is not that it isn't expressive enough or that it's too hard to use; it's that arbitrary user code can easily compromise the integrity of your website.
There's just something wrong about creating a language with a language to produce about in a third language. As Brian Kernighan told Dustin Hoffman one time, "Learn to code!".
As far as I am concerned this is a useful abstraction on a trivial problem.
Why are most comments here negative? HAML already shown this technology does have value to a significant amount of people. Someone took the time to write this, seems to have done a pretty nice job and is releasing it for anyone to use. I can't see why anyone would feel the need to put it down in the comments. If you don't like, just don't use it.
1) by posting link to it on discussion site you are assumed to be soliciting opinions.
2) it was called "beautiful". A claim so false as to require immediate and forceful contradiction.
Why are most comments here negative? HAML already shown this technology does have value to a significant amount of people. Someone took the time to write this, seems to have done a pretty nice job and is releasing it for anyone to use. I can't see why anyone would feel the need to put it down in the comments. If you don't like, just don't use it.
Because; 1) by posting link to it on discussion site you are assumed to be soliciting opinions. 2) it was called "beautiful". A claim so false as to require immediate and forceful contradiction.
2) Beauty is a matter of taste. It might not be the Bar Rafaeli of languages, but I wouldn't think it's so ugly as to require "forceful contradiction".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because; 1) by posting link to it on discussion site you are assumed to be soliciting opinions. 2) it was called "beautiful". A claim so false as to require immediate and forceful contradiction.
1) As an HN submission, it's certainly better than most. Anything with code in it beats "Startup lessons from J-Lo". 2) Beauty is a matter of taste. It might not be the Bar Rafaeli of languages, but I wouldn't think it's so ugly as to require "forceful contradiction".
Coke vs. Pepsi - taste
Python vs. PHP - not-taste
For a better explanation, see: http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
There's just something wrong about creating a language with a language to produce about in a third language. As Brian Kernighan told Dustin Hoffman one time, "Learn to code!".
What is the problem with using one language to produce another? How do you think your primary programmin language gets converted to assembly and then to machine code? As far as I am concerned this is a useful abstraction on a trivial problem.
I no longer fall for languages that only change the syntax for something the author thinks it's cuter...