Ruby-on-rails – good HAML -> ERB/HTML converter

Haml rocks. I haven't seen any recent performance numbers but it is pretty close to erb these days. I think that it might be faster than erb if you turn on ugly mode (which prevents the pretty indentation) We're doing 2.8 million pageviews a day with Haml.

There is a benchmarker checked into the Haml source tree: http://github.com/nex3/haml/tree/master/test

Update November 2009

Nathan (Haml's main developer) published some Haml 2.2 benchmarks on his blog. You can see the exact numbers there but in short:

• Normal (pretty printing) mode = 2.8 times slower than ERB
• Ugly mode (no pretty tabs added) = equal to ERB

You can enable ugly mode by placing Haml::Template::options[:ugly] = true in an initializer or environment file. Note that ugly mode isn't really that ugly - the resulting HTML is actually much prettier than ERB - it's just not indented nicely.

.nil? can be used on any object and is true if the object is nil.

.empty? can be used on strings, arrays and hashes and returns true if:

• String length == 0
• Array length == 0
• Hash length == 0

Running .empty? on something that is nil will throw a NoMethodError.

That is where .blank? comes in. It is implemented by Rails and will operate on any object as well as work like .empty? on strings, arrays and hashes.

nil.blank? == true
false.blank? == true
[].blank? == true
{}.blank? == true
"".blank? == true
5.blank? == false
0.blank? == false

.blank? also evaluates true on strings which are non-empty but contain only whitespace:

"  ".blank? == true
"  ".empty? == false

Rails also provides .present?, which returns the negation of .blank?.

Array gotcha: blank? will return false even if all elements of an array are blank. To determine blankness in this case, use all? with blank?, for example:

[ nil, '' ].blank? == false
[ nil, '' ].all? &:blank? == true