Hacker News Reader

Comment by nir | Hacker News Reader

Why are most comments here negative? HAML already shown this technology does have value to a significant amount of people. Someone took the time to write this, seems to have done a pretty nice job and is releasing it for anyone to use. I can't see why anyone would feel the need to put it down in the comments. If you don't like, just don't use it.

View on HN

Because;

1) by posting link to it on discussion site you are assumed to be soliciting opinions.

2) it was called "beautiful". A claim so false as to require immediate and forceful contradiction.

1) As an HN submission, it's certainly better than most. Anything with code in it beats "Startup lessons from J-Lo".

2) Beauty is a matter of taste. It might not be the Bar Rafaeli of languages, but I wouldn't think it's so ugly as to require "forceful contradiction".

I like what I see of the DSL, but I don't believe meritorious beauty is a matter of taste.

Coke vs. Pepsi - taste

Python vs. PHP - not-taste

For a better explanation, see: http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html

I think we're in agreement. My distinction is:

Beautiful vs Nice - taste.

Beautiful vs Ugly - not taste.

So, since it's obvious this DSL isn't ugly, being less than beautiful doesn't really merit HN's negative response.

In any case, the negative comments seem to be doing great, which is sad for HN. My experience is that people who actually produce stuff (in any field) aren't usually publicly critical of other people's work, since they can appreciate the effort involved, and don't want to be at the same spot when they release their own work.

Criticism is not a bad thing.

I did not post the link here, nor did I call anything "beautiful," but I presume that the reason the original poster posted the link on a "discussion" site was to solicit "discussion." Immediate and forceful contradiction does not equate to discussion, even when the claim is "so false" as this one.

One of the primary benefits I get from HN is the pro and con discussion of technology, especially if it's something I might want to use. If there are good reasons not use a technology, then I would rather hear about them before I rediscover them from my own experience.

As the author of SHPAML, I have no problem with all the negative comments about lightweight syntax abstractions, as I've seen all the same arguments written against HAML. Most of the critics of SHPAML have probably never actually used it, nor do I expect them to if they don't share the same pain points as I do. Nowhere do I make any claims that SHPAML is going to cure all problems. It does make producing HTML easier for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com