We don't want your coffescript • Hacker News Board

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#21

Post by smilekzs » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 9:03 AM UTC

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #8

gfodor wrote: post #4

Are there people that seriously can't just read CoffeeScript as-is? Are there seriously people that can't scan through the CoffeeScript docs in about 20 minutes and pick up the language more or less? The first time I saw CoffeeScript I immediately realized, oh, fuck yes, this is obviously better, and switched over to it immediately. I was productive with it instantly. Is it really something worth spending your time a…

Agreed completely. My only issue w/coffeescript is that, uh, I like clojurescript better. But clojurescript is all the things coffeescript is, just more ---further from javascript, more concise, less compatible with standard js tools.

coffee-script is not less compatible with standard js tools. Again, "it's just javascript" and you can use backticks in coffee to get embedded js.

Common mistake made by coffee-script-nay-sayers.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#22

Post by smilekzs » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 9:05 AM UTC

hayksaakian wrote: post #10

My biggest problem with CS is it's a space sensitive language that comnpiles to a space insensitive language. Given that you'll typically interact with wild west JS that adheres to no spacing conventions, having to juggle strict spacing vs arbitrary spacing seems looks a headache.

coffee-script compiler output is pretty well-formatted -- so it's indented correctly even though javascript does not require that.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#23

Post by smilekzs » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 9:14 AM UTC

The author mentioned the ES6 problem, which I think is the only valid point made in the whole article (others are way too subjective).

Despite the hope that ES6 could be usable as-is, there's always the legacy syntax problem -- and the same applies to coffee-script (and its various forks). Some bad parts of javascript are going to stay in ES6 -- solved beautifully by pre-ES6 coffee, but due to the changes elsewhere we'd have to start over.

It remains unclear what we would be using when ES6 gains traction.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#24

Post by lcedp » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 9:49 AM UTC

> Always compile your code down to JavaScript before posting a question to StackOverflow, or replying to a blog post. You might even learn things about JavaScript itself, too.

I don't see author's enormous arrogance backed by any efforts to think about his reasoning.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#25

Post by _random_ » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 11:54 AM UTC

TypeScript is the best bet if you want to write today's JS the ECMA6 (Harmony) style. It's not like CofeeScript.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#26

Post by anaphor » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 1:31 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #17

shazow wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can read it but it's a struggle. Much like reading Ruby, for someone who comes from Python. The syntax doesn't quite make sense to me and its usage varies between authors—a bunch of things are optional and used unpredictably (parenthesis, lambdas, indent-alignment). Despite the Pythonish indent-based blocks, CoffeeScript is very much Ruby-like in syntax and culture. From my experience, fluent Ruby readers enjoy Cof…

> CoffeeScript != JavaScript [...] Python != Ruby I beg to differ, CoffeeScript really is JavaScript, written (literally) differently. CoffeeScript is merely a different formal language+grammar[0] that can (and is — almost) translated word for word into the same core. The semantics and underpinnings are exactly the same as with JavaScript. Conversely, were you writing Python with a Ruby-like formal language, it would…

Yes, this is what I've been saying all along. CS does not alter the semantics of JS, it is just a different syntax for the same language. A PL is not just its syntax. I sometimes hear new programmers say something like "it's easy to learn more programming languages once you know one, it's just syntax" and I'm not sure where they're getting this idea from :(

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#27

Post by standup75 » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 1:31 PM UTC

I do love CS and I don't think people should answer js questions writing CS code. This is just rude. If you write your blog in CS, it's your choice, it just limits your audience.

Seeing such an angry reaction about CS is a good news, it just means that it is popular.

And for the ones who think CS is just pretty js, I suggest this reading http://aseemk.com/talks/intro-to-coffeescript

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#28

Post by scotth » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 1:37 PM UTC

tommorris wrote: post #16

shazow wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can read it but it's a struggle. Much like reading Ruby, for someone who comes from Python. The syntax doesn't quite make sense to me and its usage varies between authors—a bunch of things are optional and used unpredictably (parenthesis, lambdas, indent-alignment). Despite the Pythonish indent-based blocks, CoffeeScript is very much Ruby-like in syntax and culture. From my experience, fluent Ruby readers enjoy Cof…

Strange. I know Ruby and Python and switch between them quite frequently, but generally prefer Ruby. I loathe CoffeeScript. My problem with CoffeeScript is it imposes extra burden—to learn the syntax, and to learn how the build tools and process works (which, once you factor into account the various different web frameworks like Rails, Django, Flask and whatever brand of crazy syrup the Node people are currently drin…

I use Coffee everyday, and I think the features most worth looking at are that every statement is an expression, list comprehensions and the "do" statement (for closing over variables in loops).

And I'm a seasoned JavaScripter. Not a hater either. I just truly believe the benefit is there, and I urge you to take a second look. The syntax won't take you long if you put your mind to it.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#29

Post by dpweb » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 1:43 PM UTC

You need to get more benefit from the abstraction than the cost. I couldn't find it, in cs.

I've made thousands of mistakes (on a daily basis it feels like). In 17 years I don't think I have ever once forgotten to put 'var' in front of a variable declaration.

Re: We don't want your coffescript

#30

Post by krapp » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 1:48 PM UTC

What i've never understood about coffeescript is, since it compiles to javascript, why not just learn to write javascript in the idioms that coffeescript generates?

No one would have a problem suggesting that a developer who only used jQuery actually learn how to code in standard js without the syntactic sugar. CS doesn't compile to bytecode, it compiles to an actual, human-readable and editable language.

So why not just learn that style of javascript and save yourself the hassle of pretending there's a second scripting language for the web?