[Zope] Isn't DTML more like what other frameworks do?

[Andreas Jung]

--On 8. Januar 2007 13:01:26 -0500 "Mark, Jonathan (Integic)" 
<jonathan.mark at integic-hc.com> wrote:

> """Why (the hell) are you (still) using DTML (as newbie). You are strongly
> encouraged to use ZPT."""
>
> My sense is that ZPT solves a problem which for most of us does not
> exist. If you wish to have designers work directly on markup in an HTML
> WYSIWYG editor then yes, ZPT is great.

That's a pseudo argument. I've never seen any designer working on top
of a ZPT

>
> But most of us create our own HTML anyway. And for us it doesn't matter
> if DTML works in a WYSIWYG HTML editor, because we don't use the latter.
>
> What does matter is that DTML is very similar to RHTML (as in Ruby On
> Rails), ASP, etc. ZPT requires a new way of thinking. I would much rather
> convert RHTML to or from DTML than to or from ZPT.
>
> So I don't really get the benefit of using ZPT. The fact that no one
> outside of Zope seems to have created a ZPT-like solution suggests to me
> that ZPT, as I said, solves a problem which doesn't exist.

The question is: what is easier to learn and to understand - DTML or ZPT?
Can you explain the "nonsense" of the _ namespace in DTML to a newbie?
Can you explain the sequence-item magic with all special cases to a newbie?
ZPT is another approach to generate HTML. It's more logical, easier to learn
and read. A person with PHP background might prefer DTML but from my 
experience with people starting with I can say that ZPT is more straight 
forward for them. ZPT has of course it's pros and cons but my general 
advice to people starting with Zope: thumb up for using ZPT, thumb down for 
using DTML.

Andreas



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/attachments/20070108/c6180b46/attachment.bin