Because... > Us rails folks do it on the server side, but that means we do suffer from a > number of disadvantages
...I'd imagine. Not meaning to be offensive here. I know that's the choice a lot of people make, and if it works for them, thumbs up. Also Myles, your plugin is nice and Imma let you use it. I think though that a substantial amount of markup being maintained both through a JS-based templating language and server side is pants. Though given that my point of view implies in what I see as a "crippled" architecture (views having to be exported to JS through ajax text requests or, *cough*, RJS), it's the lesser of two evils. On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Lachlan Hardy <[email protected]> wrote: >> Obviously it'd great if we could run ruby in the browser. > Gestalt is pretty interesting: > http://www.visitmix.com/Labs/gestalt/ > >> I'm not quite willing to use javascript on the server side, not even for >> consistency's sake. > > Why not? > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
