Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 178 posts

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#151

Post by ricardobeat »

3pt14159 wrote: post #29
jashkenas wrote: post #11

This is going to be a very interesting poll result. Even 5 or 10% penetration is something remarkable, for a language as widely-used as JavaScript. If you feel like providing any more color beyond your vote, your impressions after using CoffeeScript in anger -- I'd love to hear 'em.

I've never done front end before (I just hate the JS syntax, so I've avoided it, besides a few jsonp requests) but with CoffeeScript I was persuaded to give it a try. Here is my problem. Nothing is Google-able. Even basic things that I get caught up on the answer on IRC is usually "look up how to do it in JS, and then reform it to CS". Maybe I'm starting on the wrong stuff, but even though the syntax is wonderful, ac…

You should really learn Javascript first. Coffeescript is not (yet) a replacement for it, more like a tool.

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#152

Post by sapphirecat »

johnbender wrote: post #148
jashkenas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browser implementors are working on making easier to debug all compile-to-JS languages, including regular minified JavaScript code. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=618650 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30933 In the meantime, CoffeeScript tries to make debugging easy by compiling to straightforward, readable JS, with meaningful variable names, normal indentation, and all that. Patches to make the…

Strait forward and readable in many cases but beware: http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#loops To be clear, I think CoffeeScript is an impressive language/abstraction. I just get tired of people selling the Javascript output as always being "straightforward" and "readable".

Beware of what? It does look quite straightforward and readable to me. The JS actually helps me understand the CoffeeScript (note, I have never seen real CoffeeScript code before.) Even the class definitions and destructuring assignment further along are quite comprehensible. I don't even have to qualify that with "for what they do."

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#153

Post by johnbender »

ricardobeat wrote: post #150
johnbender wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strait forward and readable in many cases but beware: http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#loops To be clear, I think CoffeeScript is an impressive language/abstraction. I just get tired of people selling the Javascript output as always being "straightforward" and "readable".

What's wrong with those compiled loops? The only difference from a "hand-written" loop is that you would use `i` and `ln` instead of `_i` and `_len`, and something in context like `numbers` instead of `_results`.

There are a total of 9 references to the `_vars`. I think line noise in the compiled javascript is a legitimate counter argument to the claim that its strait forward and readable.

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#154

Post by jasonporritt »

TrevorBurnham wrote: post #108

I'm the author of the PragProg book on CoffeeScript: http://pragprog.com/titles/tbcoffee/coffeescript It's heartening to see so many people responding to this poll. I hopped on the CoffeeScript bandwagon more than a year ago; a week of using it was enough to convince me to stop writing pure JS. It's become my favorite language, even overtaking Ruby. (Cue dhh at last month's RailsConf keynote: "Looking at CoffeeScript…

I agree -- CoffeeScript is the best way to write JavaScript right now. I very recently had a great experience writing a mobile web application using it, and I'm pleased that it's now an official part of Rails.

Like most languages at 1.0, though, it has some growing to do. I still find myself needing to dive down into the compiled JavaScript to make sure it's doing what I think it's doing in some unclear situations (nested data structures we used in our tests, for example). I've seldom found a need to take similar actions in more mature languages and I'm sure that will improve as CoffeeScript development continues.

I warmly welcome any tool that makes my life as a developer easier or more enjoyable (CoffeeScript does both) and I hope its success continues to inspire the growth of client-side web development languages.

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#155

Post by ehsanu1 »

sitkack wrote: post #109
jashkenas wrote: post #11

This is going to be a very interesting poll result. Even 5 or 10% penetration is something remarkable, for a language as widely-used as JavaScript. If you feel like providing any more color beyond your vote, your impressions after using CoffeeScript in anger -- I'd love to hear 'em.

I am strictly a server side programmer and have a problem doing front end work. I want to learn it, but it feels like a sheer cliff to me. The low level CoffeeScript documentation is excellent. What I am looking for and not being a JavaScript programmer this is admittedly difficult for me, is some hand holding on the mechanics. * packaging, how do I import modules or packages? Do these even exist? * debugging, how do…

For debugging, see node-inspector: https://github.com/dannycoates/node-inspector

For details about modules: http://nodejs.org/docs/v0.4.8/api/modules.html

Use the same site for the rest of the API too of course.

I like vows.js for unit testing: http://vowsjs.org/

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#156

Post by ricardobeat »

johnbender wrote: post #153
ricardobeat wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with those compiled loops? The only difference from a "hand-written" loop is that you would use `i` and `ln` instead of `_i` and `_len`, and something in context like `numbers` instead of `_results`.

There are a total of 9 references to the `_vars`. I think line noise in the compiled javascript is a legitimate counter argument to the claim that its strait forward and readable.

12 if you count the declaration. You'd have exactly the same doing it yourself, you can at most reduce it to 10 by declaring i and ln inside for().

You're also overlooking the fact that this can be considered an advantage: variable naming for these transient uses is very consistent. When writing JS you could have names all over, even a different one for every loop.

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#158

Post by jashkenas »

johnbender wrote: post #153
ricardobeat wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with those compiled loops? The only difference from a "hand-written" loop is that you would use `i` and `ln` instead of `_i` and `_len`, and something in context like `numbers` instead of `_results`.

There are a total of 9 references to the `_vars`. I think line noise in the compiled javascript is a legitimate counter argument to the claim that its strait forward and readable.

The reason why all declarations happen at the top of the current function body, instead of inline with the first assignment is because in JavaScript assignment is a statement, not an expression. You can't do this:

    alert(var one = 2);
In CoffeeScript, (nearly) everything is an expression. So you need to be able to do this:

    alert one = 2
By pushing up all the var declarations, all assignments can be themselves assigned, returned, or passed as arguments to function calls directly.

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#159

Post by pom »

thiagofm wrote: post #35

I think you guys obsess too much about programming languages. I doubt that anybody doing something useful cares about THAT "wohooo expressiveness". JS is alright, dammit. You don't need CS, you need to get your shit done.

But better expressiveness is exactly what you need to get your shit done. Being able to say what you mean concisely lets you focus on solving your problem and move on to the next task faster rather than getting bogged down into getting some petty details right.

Re: Poll: Have you moved from JavaScript to CoffeeScript?

#160

Post by johnbender »

ricardobeat wrote: post #156
johnbender wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a total of 9 references to the `_vars`. I think line noise in the compiled javascript is a legitimate counter argument to the claim that its strait forward and readable.

12 if you count the declaration. You'd have exactly the same doing it yourself, you can at most reduce it to 10 by declaring i and ln inside for(). You're also overlooking the fact that this can be considered an advantage: variable naming for these transient uses is very consistent. When writing JS you could have names all over, even a different one for every loop.

I've maintained the hoisted index variable and cached the length:

    var i, foods = ['toast', 'cheese', 'wine'], foods_length = foods.length;
    
    for (i = 0; i
Prefixing variables with an underscore is not an advantage in readability because it lends nothing to the description of what the variable represents. Its another glyph that you have to visually parse before reaching possible meaning.
Post reply on HN