61–70 of 132 posts
Hmm they say the same thing about haml, however haml makes my life so much easier when writing views. I will say that just like you should know HTML before using haml, you should know JavaScript before using CoffeeScript.
Ditto. They will say the same thing, you should know X before using Y. Example: Objective-C -> MacRuby; Slim/HAML/Jade -> HTML; SASS/LESS -> CSS and so on...
I for one hope something succeeds, but would prefer more of a bytecode in browser solution than transpiling to JS. One can dream.
Quite honestly the premise is rubbish. "CoffeeScript isn't a language worth learning because it isn't a language. It doesn't make you think about programming in a new way" How is that a definition of a language? It compiles down to another language sure - but what doesn't?
In spoken languages, there is a difference between a language, a dialect, and a specialized vocabulary. My premise is that CoffeeScript is a jargon of JavaScript. Maybe you could say it’s a dialect of JavaScript. But my premise is that notation alone does not make it a distinct language.
In general, langages don't tend to have multiple grammars (although spoke languages tend to be looser than written), and perhaps the unnaturalness of having a second grammar might undermine your position.
what's wrong w/ javascript? fill me in, because i for one totally love js the way it is.
what's wrong w/ javascript? fill me in, because i for one totally love js the way it is.
No real classes. No type systen (optional at least would be good). No packages. No modules. No generics. No annotations, mix-ins, actors. No properties. No interfaces. No abstract classes. Horrible to maintain on large projects. Horrible tooling. Bad performance compared to VM or Native code. So much more.
This article just argues over what is and what is not a language.
I find these anti -CoffeeScript articles annoying. I use CoffeeScript, because it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, whatever, write plain JavaScript. This article just argues over what is and what is not a language.
Not sure why it needs the sensationalist title if the author's underlying point is simply that Coffeescript is a pretty good tool for writing nicely patterned Javascript and not a language in and of itself. I guess it is a marketing ploy. I expect it will work.
I usually write these sort of titles because they amuse me rather than in the extreme hope of linkbaiting. I accept that writing for my own amusement has about as much value for others as laughing at my own jokes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the coffeescript website: CoffeeScript is a little language that compiles into JavaScript. Underneath all those awkward braces and semicolons, JavaScript has always had a gorgeous object model at its heart. CoffeeScript is an attempt to expose the good parts of JavaScript in a simple way. Coffeescript has never presented itself otherwise. What causes the confusion is pointless discussions about semantics and peo…
> Coffeescript has never presented itself otherwise. My point was not to disparage the author, his intentions, his lucidity, nor even the resulting language. When people receive something packaged as a compiler (a file->file traduction tool to invoke from the command line and to include in building scripts), they naturally understand it as a compiler, and judge its qualities as a compiler. And by "compiler", I mean t…
I'm glad you've got your own definition but using it only serves to confuse the discussion.
Furthermore, your argument is weak. The only reason you don't need to be more familiar with the technologies supporting gcc and javac is because they are robust and much older. If you were there at the beginning of their development you most certainly would have needed to be more familiar with their underlying platforms. In fact many would argue you'd be a better programmer if you did now.
Another reason your argument could be weak: Does a line number mapper between coffeescript and its generated javascript completely nullify your argument?
At that point I wouldn't need to ever look at the generated source and would care only about it's execution. That sounds pretty much exactly like a "compiled" language to me.