* Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-28 06:05]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >TT2 provides a single minilanguage for both, which is > >unnecessarily powerful and verbose for the 18% and way > >underpowered for the 2%. > > You're only supposed to use the TT language for simple things. > Hairy things are supposed to be encapsulated in plugins, > written in Perl.
That makes a certain amount of sense; I say a certain amount, because I’m not sure what case it makes for TT2: 1. Some bits of hairy display logic really are specific to the particular template they’re in, so putting them in a plugin just pointlessly moves apart related bits of code. 2. Sometimes there are still large blocks of static strings interspersed with such logic, so it’s more of a sub-template task than a plugin task. 3. If you’re going to bail out to the Perl layer for complex stuff (which you should), you might as well pick something with a more concise markup generation syntax than TT2’s for the simple stuff. (I admit TT2 fares decently when producing plain text formats – but I’ve never had to do that.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
