David Masover wrote:
> I really like Haml. But I really like Erector (inspired by Markaby).

But which is better? There's only one way to find out. FIGHT!!!

> What is your favorite Ruby template language for generating HTML?

HAML

> Which editor do you use to edit HTML templates?

joe

> Which editor do you use to edit Ruby source?

joe

> If Ruby had optional significant whitespace as a core language feature 
> (maybe
> like http://gist.github.com/117694), would you use it

Never in a million years. If I wanted that, I'd be using python.

> If your favorite template language is Haml, would you prefer Erector if 
> Ruby
> had significant whitespace?
> (yes/no/NA)

NA, since I wouldn't be using ruby.

> If you actually dislike Haml, is it because of the significant 
> whitespace?
> (yes/no/NA)

NA. HAML is great.

> Have you done any significant development in Python?
> (yes/no)

No. But I have in the past done significant development in Occam, which 
is also a signficant-indentation language.

   SEQ
     .. do X
     .. do Y
     .. do Z

It was bearable when using a folding editor, and that limits your choice 
of editor a lot. I ended up writing one.

I agree it does seem paradoxical that one can like indentation for HTML 
but dislike it for programming. For me the following are important:

- HTML has the need for balancing end tags, and the annoying </...> 
syntax. With Ruby it's just three characters, 'end'

- I find HTML templates are small and don't often need moving around or 
commenting out; the occasional indent/outdent I can cope with

- I do write ruby in a consistently indented way, but I like seeing the 
'end' rather than the execution path falling off a cliff. That is, loops 
and other control structures have a bound shape.

OTOH it doesn't matter to me in HTML, since it's all just content and 
nested divs.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.