A simple image hosting site written in Haskell
bitbucket.org
bitbucket.org
However, this makes me cringe a little:
+++ thediv ! [identifier "gallery"]
<< (thediv ! [theclass "screenshots"]
<< ulist <<
(li << anchor ! [href ("view.fcgi?file=" ++ first)]
As far as I know, Haskell doesn't a code-as-data philosophy. (Right?) I think that there are a lot of pure Lisp HTML alternatives, and they work because Lisp is at the same time declarative and functional. S-expressions are concise and almost look like CSS. But Haskell code doesn't seem like such a great replacement. There's too much syntax, and, in my opinion, that gets in the way of understanding-at-a-glance.Is this style common in Haskell Web development?
> Is this style common in Haskell Web development?
Not at all; the author is quite obviously inexperienced in using Haskell, and is using some weird old crufty library to create HTML.The two most common template libraries are Heist[1] and Hamlet[2]. Heist uses Rails/Django-style external template files, while Hamlet embeds markup directly into the Haskell source code using quasiquotation.
[1] http://snapframework.com/docs/tutorials/heist
[2] http://www.yesodweb.com/book/templates
Even if one wanted to represent markup as Haskell types, there's no reason it needs to be as ugly as in that example. A really basic version might be:
div [("id", "gallery")] $ do
div [("class", "screenshots")] mzero
ul [] $ do
li [] $ do
a [("href", "view.fcgi?file=" ++ first)] mzero SELECT name FROM images WHERE number = ((SELECT max(number) FROM images) - 1 > quite obviously inexperienced in using Haskell
I'm using Haskell for only four months now, I'd be worried if it weren't obvious.Besides, it's not as bad as it looks.
+++ just concatenates two HTML fragments
<< puts something under a HTML element
the ! [...] defines attributes for a HTML element
Pretty clear, but I guess to each his own.
Here's the equivalent HAML:
#gallery
.screenshots
ul
li
a{"href" => "view.fcgi?file=#{first}"}
HAML is super clean, and there's essentially no redundant syntax; in other words, if you type something, it's because it's necessary. There's no fat.non-idiomatic hamlet isn't far from that haml snippet (note you would never put bits of urls in the template as strings, instead you provide a url rendering function which converts the @{} bits into url strings):
<#gallery
<.screenshots
<ul
<li
<a href=@{View first}
idiomatic hamlet is much more focused on being a cleaner html for designers than it is trying to be a haml clone.I agree. Considering that you can assign 'id' and 'class' through the main syntax, I don't think it's too bad. Attribute values are Ruby strings, so the quotes work for me. With Ruby 1.9 you should, in theory, be able to use the new improved hash syntax:
a{href: "/ding"}
...but I don't know if HAML has implemented it.Edit: HAML actually supports a different, simpler syntax for attributes:
%a(href="/ding")
> idiomatic hamlet is much more focused on being a cleaner html for designers than it is trying to be a haml clone.I know that some companies work that way. We let our designers learn HAML (and SASS) instead. That way they can contribute to the projects as first-class citizens. HAML is simple enough that a designer can even work with conditionals and loops.
Actually there's very little syntax in that snippet. all those scary +++, <<, etc. are just functions and you can look at how they're implemented, ask GHCi what their type is, etc.
But I agree that doesn't make the code above any less readable :)
fromMaybe ""
checkInputFile encodes a no-result as a "no" string. This is a very un-Haskelly thing to do (Use a Maybe String, instead).Use of C's if syntax is a bit weird, too. No need for these extra parens.
getRandomName weirdly uses getStdGen/newStdGen instead of just making a random generator directly.
basename is (incorrectly) duplicating standard library behavior.
saveFile uses fromJust, will crash at runtime.