Re: Templating Solutions

[Steve Purkis]

David Cantrell wrote:
 
 On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:24:13PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
  On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
   On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no!
(ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy
HTML and thy Perl in the same file).
   It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application.
   So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with
   the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT.  Why are
   those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for
   other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't?
 
  Ohmigod, I'm agreeing with Cantrell on something!!
 
 What am I doing wrong? ;-)
 
 Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application
 from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not
 do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML and save
 yourself the trouble of inventing a whole new wheel.

That sounds like a contradictory statement there - of course the line
will never be 100% clear  cut-out...  And as for inventing new wheels -
well we're all coders  scientists  engineers here...  That's what we
do!


 You can still stick your business logic elsewhere and have that called
 by the perl embedded in the templates.


I see where you're coming from, but think about how this will be abused
- coders will get lazy and eventually just embed all the business logic
in the templates.  Then your life will be a living hell.  As a worst
case scenario you'll end up with (eek!) an inverted Bugzilla!  ;-)

With the vast array of options we've got on Perl tools for templating 
embedding  serving (and other -ings), it seems to me the trend is to
create a whole bunch of new wheels.  Then everybody talks about them 
the better wheel(s) is pointed out, and then maybe then the wheels are
improved to become uber-wheels while in the background the cycle repeats
itself...

I'd argue that embedding code in your templates is on the way out, and
the sooner it goes the better.  I think it was a necessary step away
from embedding templates in your code (eg. cgi scripts), but now it's
time to recognize the aforementioned split  revise our models  tools
accordingly (and create new ones if necessary).

But then again, this has prolly all been said before.  Anyways, that's
my 2c.

--
 Steve Purkis  [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 (0) 207 614 8600
 Unix Developer  red | hot | chilli f: +44 (0) 207 614 8601

Re: Introduction to XP

[Steve Purkis]

Greg McCarroll wrote:
 
 * Cross David - dcross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
  From: Cross David - dcross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 1:47 PM
 
   Interesting stuff...
  
   http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/05/04/xp_intro.html
 
  Should point out, that's Extreme Programming, _not_ Windows XP :)
 
 
 which i believe has been renamed to 2002
 
 ( according to some dodgy marketting pals who can't be trusted )


Yikes!  I don't know anything about these `dodgy marketting pals' ... 
is there a FAQ somewhere?

--
 Steve Purkis  [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 (0) 207 614 8600
 Unix Developer  red | hot | chilli f: +44 (0) 207 614 8601

Re: Do what I mean!

[Steve Purkis]

Matthew Robinson wrote:
 
 With respect to Quantum::Superpositions and in the spirit of 'Do what I
 mean' I think we should be able to write any script and place the following
 pragma in the header.
 
 use constant time;
 
 Obviously, the constant module would have to be overloaded to allow this
 along with a few tweaks to the core.

A *few* tweaks to the core?  Come on now, you'd have to make the core
grok multiple dimensions!  (... and that would be about as easy as
building an infinite improbrability drive...)

But I suppose you might argue that the core already _spans_ multiple
dimensions (everything does, until you look at it), so it wouldn't relly
need to understand this to make use of it.  So maybe it would just be a
matter of trying (eg: observing) it and seeing if it works?  Well, I
did, and I got this error:

% perl -e 'use constant time;'
Can't define "983277222" as constant (name contains invalid characters
or is empty) at -e line 1
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1.

I concluded that while it must work in some universe, it isn't ours.

regards,
--
 Steve Purkis   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Unix Developer www.redhotchilli.com

Re: NY invasion, was Re: Conway Hall

[Steve Purkis]

Mike Jarvis wrote:
 
 David H. Adler wrote:
  On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:32:08PM -0500, Mike Jarvis wrote:
  
   When looking at cost, remember what hotel rates in NYC are like
  (almost as
   bad as London).  You can easily pay US$250/night for a room
  that you would
   swear is in a crack house.
 
  But the crack is *great*!
 
 Rooms actually in a crack house will be significantly more expensive.

Depends - sometimes they don't charge you at all!
(if you're selling alot of crack, say)

It's the whorehouses that are always expensive.

--
 Steve Purkis   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Unix Developer www.redhotchilli.com