Sass, Pug, Haml, Slim, Stylus, and their friends all aim to make writing various bits of your frontend easier. And they mostly deliver on this primary promise. But they are all victims to the vagaries of open software development, and seem to have mostly fallen by the wayside. I loved using these through my career, so its with a bit of sadness that I realized I don't want to use them for new projects.
  • brie@beehaw.org
    2·
    1 year ago

    The Temple examples look very nice; the Builder ones to my eye look quite cluttered in comparison, which I’m guessing is due to differences in syntax between their respective languages.

    I tink the main downside of templating in general is that it ends up making interfacing with JavaScript and plain HTML harder, compared to CustomElementRegistry based components.

    • Paradox@lemdro.idOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Builder is mostly targeted at building XML files, and so compared to XML its fairly terse. HTML is just a nice also-have. There are template langs in ruby that are a lot closer to the Elixir temple variant, but I can’t remember any of them off the top of my head haha.

      A good template would make interfacing “easy”. JSX[1] is a very good example of how you can interface quite easily, and the templates used in Surface work really well to bridge some of the complexities of a server-rendered but client-dependent syntax.

      1. I know JSX isn’t a template language, the differences don’t matter for the purpose of this discussion ↩︎