According to Steve Manes:
> At 11:26 AM 9/4/00 -0300, Nelson Correa de Toledo Ferraz wrote:
> >I agree that one shouldn't put lots of code inside of a template, but
> >variables and loops are better expressed in Perl than in a "little
> >crippled language".
>
> Your example makes perfect sense to me. But that's why I'm in "Tech" and
> not "Creative". I wrote my own quick 'n nasty templating package a few
> years ago that allowed Perl code to be embedded inside <PERL></PERL>
> brackets. So long as I was coding the pages, it worked great, if not as
> efficiently as embperl or mason. But in the real world of NYC new media,
> Creative typically drives the project. It's more common for the site to be
> built by artists and HTML sitebuilders, not programmers. The first time I
> see the pages is when they get handed off to Tech to glue it all together.
> This usually happens sometime past Tech's scheduled hand-off date, i.e.
> five days to do fifteen budgeted days' work in order to make the launch date.
The real advantage of a 'little crippled language' is that perl
itself makes absolutely no effort to keep you from shooting
both your feed off at once and you really don't want to let
layout people destroy your server with something as simple
as a loop that doesn't exit under certain obscure circumstances.
Nor do you want to become the only person who can safely make
changes.
> My favorite anecdote with embedded Perl templates: after a 100-page
> creative update to an existing site, nothing worked. Turned out that some
> funky HTML editor had HTML-escaped the Perl code. That was a fun all-nighter.
HTML::Embperl anticipates this problem and would have kept on
working anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
