nice-html alternatives and similar packages
Based on the "Web" category.
Alternatively, view nice-html alternatives based on common mentions on social networks and blogs.
-
servant
Servant is a Haskell DSL for describing, serving, querying, mocking, documenting web applications and more! -
swagger-petstore
swagger-codegen contains a template-driven engine to generate documentation, API clients and server stubs in different languages by parsing your OpenAPI / Swagger definition. -
haskell-bitmex-rest
swagger-codegen contains a template-driven engine to generate documentation, API clients and server stubs in different languages by parsing your OpenAPI / Swagger definition. -
neuron
Future-proof note-taking and publishing based on Zettelkasten (superseded by Emanote: https://github.com/srid/emanote) -
tagsoup
Haskell library for parsing and extracting information from (possibly malformed) HTML/XML documents -
keera-hails-reactive-htmldom
Keera Hails: Haskell on Rails - Reactive Programming Framework for Interactive Haskell applications -
ghcjs-dom
Make Document Object Model (DOM) apps that run in any browser and natively using WebKitGtk
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews
* Code Quality Rankings and insights are calculated and provided by Lumnify.
They vary from L1 to L5 with "L5" being the highest.
Do you think we are missing an alternative of nice-html or a related project?
README
A nice HTML templating library
This is a library for HTML templating in the same vein as blaze-html
, lucid
,
or type-of-html
, which all provide HTML EDSLs for Haskell.
Overview
WIP. Check out Text.Html.Nice.Writer
for the simplest, most recommendedest,
monadic interface.
Example
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
module TodoList where
import Data.Text (Text)
import Text.Html.Nice ((:$) (..), Attr (..), Builder,
FastMarkup, Render (..))
import Text.Html.Nice.Writer
import Text.Html.Nice.Writer.Html5
data Todo = Todo
{ todoDate :: Text
, todoText :: Text
}
todos :: [Todo]
todos =
[ Todo "october 25 2017" "write todo list <html>asdf</html>" -- escaped
, Todo "october 26 2017" "write another todo list"
]
template :: FastMarkup ([Todo] -> FastMarkup Text)
template = compile $ do
doctype_
html_ $ do
head_ $ title_ "Todo list"
body_ $ do
h1_ "Todo list"
stream $ div_ ! "class" := "todo-item" $ do
text "\n<script></script>\n" -- this gets escaped
b_ (dynamic todoText)
" ("
dynamic todoDate
")"
test :: Monad m => m Builder
test = r (template :$ todos)
Comparison
Unlike
blaze-html
andlucid
:nice-html
has a distinct template compilation phase, with a different type for compiled markup.Unlike
type-of-html
: this compilation is done explicitly at runtime. This increases runtime, but enables more complex transformations. Namelynice-html
can compile escaped text.nice-html
also makes no attempt to ensure correct HTML.Unlike each of them,
nice-html
parameterises its templating type with the type for the data you use in the template. This enablesnice-html
to compile the static parts of the dynamic parts of a template instead of just the top-level stuff.Like
lucid
,nice-html
has a validMonad
interface (actually, two).Unlike
lucid
,nice-html
does not have a monad transformer. The only state thatnice-html
can currently keep track of is an increasingInt
counter, intended to be used to keep track of theid
of elements for use with JavaScript. But even this doesn't really work, because it doesn't support repeated elements (e.g. produced bystream
).
This makes it harder to write templates for nice-html
, because you
generally can't/shouldn't use the familiar mapM_
etc. for dynamic data as
you might if you were using lucid
or blaze
.
Benchmark results (as of 0.3.0)
Memory (includes memory overhead compilation... I think)
nice-html-0.3.0: benchmarks
Running 2 benchmarks...
Benchmark mem: RUNNING...
OK: nice = blaze
OK: nice = lucid
OK: lucid = blaze
Case Allocated GCs
10/blaze 562,152 1
10/nice 297,544 0
10/lucid 230,304 0
100/blaze 4,520,016 8
100/nice 2,952,184 5
100/lucid 1,855,256 3
1000/blaze 44,096,616 85
1000/nice 29,500,096 57
1000/lucid 18,071,008 32
Benchmark mem: FINISH
Runtime
Benchmark perf: RUNNING...
benchmarking 10/blaze
time 80.13 μs (79.59 μs .. 80.73 μs)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 80.41 μs (80.08 μs .. 80.83 μs)
std dev 1.166 μs (951.2 ns .. 1.531 μs)
benchmarking 10/nice
time 34.09 μs (33.88 μs .. 34.28 μs)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 34.08 μs (33.93 μs .. 34.25 μs)
std dev 542.8 ns (477.2 ns .. 619.9 ns)
variance introduced by outliers: 12% (moderately inflated)
benchmarking 10/lucid
time 57.40 μs (57.03 μs .. 57.75 μs)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 57.44 μs (57.15 μs .. 57.67 μs)
std dev 856.7 ns (763.9 ns .. 960.4 ns)
benchmarking 100/blaze
time 660.8 μs (657.2 μs .. 664.9 μs)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 661.6 μs (659.1 μs .. 664.3 μs)
std dev 8.748 μs (7.441 μs .. 10.24 μs)
benchmarking 100/nice
time 336.9 μs (334.7 μs .. 338.9 μs)
1.000 R² (0.999 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 334.3 μs (333.2 μs .. 336.1 μs)
std dev 4.685 μs (3.229 μs .. 7.873 μs)
benchmarking 100/lucid
time 514.4 μs (509.5 μs .. 519.7 μs)
0.999 R² (0.999 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 507.1 μs (504.6 μs .. 510.4 μs)
std dev 9.897 μs (7.573 μs .. 14.83 μs)
variance introduced by outliers: 11% (moderately inflated)
benchmarking 1000/blaze
time 6.355 ms (6.324 ms .. 6.380 ms)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 6.424 ms (6.400 ms .. 6.453 ms)
std dev 79.56 μs (62.81 μs .. 106.2 μs)
benchmarking 1000/nice
time 3.356 ms (3.348 ms .. 3.366 ms)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 3.376 ms (3.369 ms .. 3.385 ms)
std dev 24.95 μs (20.64 μs .. 29.55 μs)
benchmarking 1000/lucid
time 4.885 ms (4.850 ms .. 4.921 ms)
1.000 R² (1.000 R² .. 1.000 R²)
mean 4.868 ms (4.857 ms .. 4.881 ms)
std dev 36.95 μs (31.34 μs .. 43.37 μs)
Benchmark perf: FINISH