|
|
|
|
|
by maxwell
5470 days ago
|
|
These are arbitrary distinctions; as Heidegger said, language is language. As long as they're Turing complete, the only difference between "programming" and "templating" (and "natural") languages are what they're used/optimized for. Element A containing Element B can be generated by function A taking Element B. The CoffeScript program converts a set syntax/grammar into JavaScript; but the syntax is just syntax, and its clean, smart design lends itself well for compiling code other than JavaScript, just as JSON is a useful serialization format in other langs. There are benefits in using the same syntax for representing structure, content, and presentation, as long as the concerns are still properly separated. |
|
In that line of thinking, it's also raised a new question in my mind. CoffeeKup seems to be optimized for baking logic into the template. It is not too different, but too much like most "templating" languages for me to completely get behind it.
This is however, a really cool project that's well executed. I'm just hoping that the idea of further separating logic from templates takes hold (something like mustache, perhaps).