James Darling james at abscond.org
Thu Dec 10 08:02:05 PST 2009

> I've always dismissed HAML as one of those project 'where the devil makes
> work for idle hands'
> I'm not convinced by the need for an abstraction that seems to require such
> cognitive adjustment from the final output.

HAML's great. There are a load of good reasons, which I won't go into, as
I have an article I wrote about it somewhere are home that never got
published that I might share.

What I shall mention now is the only three valid criticisms I've heard of

* It encourages divitis: This is true, but worth the payoff, HAML on the
whole encourages you to write cleaner, more semantic HTML.
The syntactic sugar of semantic HAML is super sweet.
* Not everyone knows it: True, but I've usually found it takes max 48 hours
to prefer HAML to HTML. Unfortunately, stubbornness of the people around you
won't be fixed by HAML.
* Occasional edge cases, like long lines, whitespace and stuff: Yeah, these
can sometimes be a tiny bit weird, but big rule of UX design: Optimise for
common case.

The middle one is really the only one that should stop you using it. Most
other arguments against I've found are FUD.

James Darling

@abscond | 07811407085 | http://abscond.org

Rude? I loosely follow http://five.sentenc.es
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20091210/aec48242/attachment.html>

More information about the Chat mailing list