On Twitter, someone gave an alternate explanation that I'll pass along without a... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		raganwald on Feb 8, 2010 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Haml Sucks for Content On Twitter, someone gave an alternate explanation that I'll pass along without agreeing or disagreeing. They suggested the title was a honeytrap to get Haml haters to read the post and then be surreptitiously educated on why that argument against Haml is invalid. Update... That was Chris' explanation!

twism on Feb 8, 2010 | [–]

Well I got caught in that honeytrap, so the title does work.

chriseppstein on Feb 8, 2010 | | [–]

That's true, but it's also a play on words.

Haml (the syntax) sucks for content. This is a fact.

Haml (the project) provides ample facilities for working around the syntactic limitations.

grandalf on Feb 8, 2010 | [–]

I stand corrected.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact