On Sunday 10 March 2002 9:43 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
And ZPT is completely different, doesn't work in all the same places, and is (IMHO) ridiculously cumbersome and non-intuitive. Maybe I haven't given it a fair review yet, but the reality is, I just don't have time for it. Certainly it is not a natural extension to DTML, nor a replacement for it. ZPT + Python = goodbye and good riddance to dtml, for me at least. Now the only DTML I write (except maintenence of old code) is in file system ZSQL methods, where there is really no alternative (AFAIK).
(e.g. why not represent "sequence" as a Python class with "item", "index" attributes and/or "odd()" "even()" methods).
Hmm, this sounds familiar.... how well did you look at ZPT exactly?
(for example), instead of the ridiculous work-around:
_.getitem('sequence-item').absolute_url()
Not pretty, is it? Glad I don't use DTML any more. ZPT is nice and clean.
Zope is a good thing already. It doesn't need more junk. What it needs is a whole lot of straightening up.
If you ask me (and you didn't but I'm telling you anyway), ZPT *is* a part of straightening it up. I never liked DTML from the moment I started using it, it was too easy to write messy code. I had all the same problems I've had with ASP. I am eternally thankful for the day ZPT was pointed out to me. I know many people out there like to use DTML because it's what they're used to, and some of them don't abuse it and write spaghetti code with it, but then what they're doing could probably be directly ported to ZPT if they're seperating out their presentation and application logic properly. I don't see a reason to use DTML except for familiarity, and it's not exactly hard to get familiar with ZPT. Harry