pharrington wrote: I also tend to care very little about "market > share" or the next hot thing; if I have the choice and one tool is > easier/faster for a certain task than another (and yes, HAML is better > for producing HTML or XHTML markup than anything else right now), I'll > use the better tool. However, HAML is **braindead simple** to learn > and become proficient with (really, http://haml-lang.com/tutorial.html > doesn't exaggerate at all about its simplicity), and since when was > learning more technologies ever a bad thing?
learning more technologies is only a bad thing when it turns out to be a waste of time. A broad category of development such as dynamic web app development doesn't just move forward, it tends to move back and forth quite a bit. Many people think they have a better idea, but many of them are wrong. One could waste a lot of time if one learned/tried-to-use every new fad that came out. I'm hoping to find out from this thread if HAML is side-to-side, or forward motion. Sounds like your vote is "forward". thanks, jp -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
