[cgiapp] why HT::Compiled? (was: Re: Curiosity poll?)

[Mark Stosberg <suppressed>]

ReneeB wrote:
>
> HT::Compiled!

Could you say more about why you like HT::Compiled? Did you switch to it
from HT? How did you find the compatibility with HT?

I was initially very interested in HT::Compiled because it was like HT,
but added a few more features I wanted, such as built-in dot notation.

I then found (and helped fix) that it was missing some kinds of HT
compatibility, and also observed that it has continued to change fairly
quickly, sometimes in incompatible ways, and continuing to add features.

I see the continued addition of features as making it more like TT, but
without the proven history that TT has.

Now, I've come back to feeling neutral about about HT::Compiled, I
think. It's changed enough since the early releases that it deserves a
re-evaluation.

For the poll: I have always used H::T. ( > 7 years ? )

I used TT for one project for offline template generation, using the
'ttree' tool. It was very nice for that-- it worked as a standalone
application without the need to learn or use any Perl

  Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed