[keep stuff on the list] Ausum Studio wrote:
You shouldn't need to learn two templating languages and a scripting language just to use one web framework ;-)
Talking seriously, after all this time of watching things going by, I've come to think that by having both languages we have an advantage over the competition.
How so?
Now, any other excuses why you think DTML should still exist? ;-)
Unfortunately neither the three of them work :) (in the context of my needs, of course)
Well how about explaining how they don't work then?
When you have the time, I'd appreciate that you take a look at CMFPortlet's code,
Nah, I'm just interested in stopping new Zope users being conned into thinking DTML is useful for anything. I'd also like to see Zope down to one templating and one scripting language. cheers, Chris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Withers" <chrisw@nipltd.com> To: "Ausum Studio" <ausum_studio@hotmail.com> Cc: <zope@zope.org> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [Zope] Re: Java re-invents DTML :-)
[keep stuff on the list]
Fine by me, just need to say that you'd started the private emailing, and that I wasn't aware that after the first one, you CC the next. So I'm resending that one to the list.
Ausum Studio wrote:
You shouldn't need to learn two templating languages and a scripting language just to use one web framework ;-)
Talking seriously, after all this time of watching things going by,
I've
come to think that by having both languages we have an advantage over the competition. (...) When you have the time, I'd appreciate that you take a look at CMFPortlet's code,
Nah, I'm just interested in stopping new Zope users being conned into thinking DTML is useful for anything. I'd also like to see Zope down to one templating and one scripting language.
Then why to politely ask for examples in a private email? Give me a break! I'm not interested in preventing you from "stopping new Zope users being conned into thinking DTML is useful for anything". Just to seize the right tool (language) for the job. Cheers, Ausum
cheers,
Chris
Just a comment from a relative newbie (part time (10%) inhouse developer): DTML is easier to grasp as a beginner. ZPT is probably the right direction to go, but it sure does not explain itself to the reader. As (especially non-programmer) learners of Zope must survive mainly through reading through and tweaking example code, when they have to choose whether to base their work on DTML or ZPT, it is very natural to choose to work with DTML because it is easier to understand and tweak. And also because so much of the stuff one begins to change is still in DTML. ZPT seems a very nice and useful solution to the basic dilemma of embedding customization dynamics into the stupid format of HTML. But because of the constraints HTML and the web editors impose on it, it becomes sadly hard for casual developers. I think there is a need for a higher level solution to the problem. Meanwhile, it would be very important to get much more examples of the best ways to use the features of ZPT to the max. While code can easily be browsed, it is not always easy to understand why things were done in a certain way or even why they work in the first place - e.g. what assumptions, structures and conditions they depend on. (This unfortunately applies also to DTML...) Having spent now a lot of time in order to manage to do new things with DTML and encountering so much uncertainty of what I manage to get working (and still often not really understanding what made the difference since the apparent logic I figured out has let me down so many times now), it will take a long time before I could change my stuff from DTML to ZPT and risk losing the ability to at least think that I understand what is going on... kh ... At 12:13 +0000 14.2.2003, Chris Withers wrote:
[keep stuff on the list]
Ausum Studio wrote:
You shouldn't need to learn two templating languages and a scripting language just to use one web framework ;-)
Talking seriously, after all this time of watching things going by, I've come to think that by having both languages we have an advantage over the competition.
How so?
Now, any other excuses why you think DTML should still exist? ;-)
Unfortunately neither the three of them work :) (in the context of my needs, of course)
Well how about explaining how they don't work then?
When you have the time, I'd appreciate that you take a look at CMFPortlet's code,
Nah, I'm just interested in stopping new Zope users being conned into thinking DTML is useful for anything. I'd also like to see Zope down to one templating and one scripting language.
Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
Having spent now a lot of time in order to manage to do new things with DTML and encountering so much uncertainty of what I manage to get working (and still often not really understanding what made the difference since the apparent logic I figured out has let me down so many times now), it will take a long time before I could change my stuff from DTML to ZPT and risk losing the ability to at least think that I understand what is going on...
I felt the same way, but after migrating I regret not doing it sooner. regards Max M
Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
Just a comment from a relative newbie (part time (10%) inhouse developer):
DTML is easier to grasp as a beginner.
Actually that's not true, ZPT is actually easier, but currently has less documentation than DTML...
Having spent now a lot of time in order to manage to do new things with DTML and encountering so much uncertainty of what I manage to get working (and still often not really understanding what made the difference since the apparent logic I figured out has let me down so many times now), it will take a long time before I could change my stuff from DTML to ZPT and risk losing the ability to at least think that I understand what is going on...
The point for me is that ZPT is more explicit than DTML, so you won't have to second guess why soem small change you made has an apparently large effect, as is often the case in DTML. cheers, Chris
Chris Withers wrote Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote: Just a comment from a relative newbie (part time (10%) inhouse developer):
DTML is easier to grasp as a beginner.
Actually that's not true, ZPT is actually easier, but currently has less documentation than DTML...
Having now worked with both, I'd disagree, strongly. DTML is _much_ easier for the beginner. Once you get more complex, then ZPT becomes simpler. But for basic "insert chunk of html here" type things, DTML is far, far, easier to explain. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Anthony Baxter wrote:
Having now worked with both, I'd disagree, strongly. DTML is _much_ easier for the beginner. Once you get more complex, then ZPT becomes simpler. But for basic "insert chunk of html here" type things, DTML is far, far, easier to explain.
...yeah, but if you're learning to use a poweful app server, why opt for something that becoems difficult when you want to do something poweful? Why not just make the (small imho) step and go for the more powerful and flexible option straight up? To be honest, how difficult is <tal:x replace="here/whatever"/> ...than: <dtml-var whatever> ...especially when your user asks "so where does 'whatever' coem from? How is it looked up?" ...and how do you explain when to use that as opposed to: <dtml-var "whatever"> ...or &dtml-whatever; ? cheers, Chris
participants (5)
-
Anthony Baxter -
Ausum Studio -
Chris Withers -
Kari-Hans Kommonen -
Max M