Despite I agree that writing code and markup in common ASP way is evil, I must argue that doing so or using provided abilities wisely is up to you.
I see no reasons to divide (not so) complex display/ markup logic and e.g. HTML. But I see reason to have them together: fragility. When you're using ST or Enlive for complex templating it's meant to go in different parts: here I have HTML and here I have either helpers (ST) or code for DOM manipulating (Enlive). Using ST you end up with tons of HTML-built-with-strings-in- helpers, lacking code highlighting&assisting and, more important, digging through string-building garbage. Using Enlive you're working hard to change design without screwing near- spaghetti manipulating (templating, yeah) code. Speaking of designers, they won't go into helpers and won't in doubt when screwing up templating code. I must say that I wrote down here a bit exaggerated examples, and sorry for that, but I see all this as another evil, just not so popularized one. Each approach obviously has its pros and cons. And as in static vs dynamic typing, I (personally) prefer flexible solution over restricted-for-your-own-safe one. On Feb 23, 10:55 pm, Vagif Verdi <vagif.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Years of using ASP and JSP convinced me that writing markup and code > in the same file is evil. > > That's why i prefer StringTemplate. It is perfectly usable with > clojure and accepts clojure maps, yet it does not allow you to > incorporate arbitrary code into your templates. Everyone is happy, > especially designers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
