Compose VS Haml

Compose has moved to Https://compose.com. Source: almost 3 years ago

First of all, I like Slim. I like the beauty and cleanness of Slim templates, to me they are way more readable than regular ERB templates and I think they fit in the ruby/Rails ecosystem very well. Slim is a close cousin to Haml, without the ugly percent characters, haha. I've used Slim exclusively in my projects since about 2016. - Source: dev.to / 6 months ago

> I can't say what problem it is supposed to solve "Haml accelerates and simplifies template creation" https://haml.info/ If you'd rather write raw HTML, keeping track of closing tags etc, then don't use HAML. No need to bash it because you personally feel it is ugly or unnecessary. FWIW I personally feel the exact opposite. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago

There is a better side by side of the syntax here https://haml.info (i've been using haml for 17 years lol, I find it more enjoyable to read and write). - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago

Personally, I'd recommend Maud if you don't need something with runtime reloading. Not only is it much faster, it implements a template language that is effectively the Rust-syntax equivalent to Slim or Haml using a procedural macro, so you get compile-time verification that your HTML output is well-formed. Source: about 1 year ago

Does this support HAML-style syntax? We're 100% HAML-only for templating, whether normal Rails views or ViewComponent... https://github.com/haml/haml so going back to writing HTML or ERB feels like a huge downgrade. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago