That's a seriously confusing name. I thought this was a physics story of some kind. Additionally it's also a bad name because it's impossible to google.
I dunno, we're doing OK on Google with "Atom".
Atom Shell is now Electron
31–40 of 84 posts
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying you won't use Rails because it's written in Ruby and not C. Also, it's nice to work in a language that has the right features and not just all the features. I like CoffeeScript as much for what it doesn't have as for what it does have. I recently saw this piece of code: new Array(26) .map(function (item, index) { return String.fromCharCode(65 + index); }) as a "heads up" for map lovers. That's the…
const caps = new Array(26).map((item, index) => String.fromCharCode(65 + index)); It's not wrong. Could maybe be better though.
It is wrong. "new Array(26)" creates an Array with preallocated space for 26 elements (instead of 26 'undefined' elements, as one might expect), and calling .map() on it will return another empty array. The semantics here are particularly difficult to reason about because map is specified to not execute its callback on undefined elements.
Someone will probably chime in here with a correction, but the point is this -- JS is NOT a friendly language to deal with.
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#33The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript. As someone who loves idiomatic JS, I still can't get why you'd pick a language that makes tooling and debugging a nightmare. It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1]. [1] https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features
To all the sibling commenters defending the merits of CoffeeScript: - https://discuss.atom.io/t/why-coffeescript/131 - https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-better-for-discourse-to-u...
Translation: "more people know JavaScript than CoffeeScript, so you shouldn't bother with CoffeeScript"
More people are familiar with Notepad than vi. Does that make vi a bad choice?
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#34The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript. As someone who loves idiomatic JS, I still can't get why you'd pick a language that makes tooling and debugging a nightmare. It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1]. [1] https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features
I agree, have an up vote. I wish this community was nice to each other, instead of telling you why your personal choice is wrong and and trying to prove that they are right. It's not about being right or wrong, because there is no right or wrong. Just tools to do the job.
Ignore the haters, they will always exist. Just keep build great stuff.
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#35Electron's / Atom Shell's homepage isn't doing a good job of explaining what it is (as someone who's unfamiliar with it). Is it a site-specific-browser implementation? It's certainly not a "shell" in the normal sense of the term.
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#36The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript. As someone who loves idiomatic JS, I still can't get why you'd pick a language that makes tooling and debugging a nightmare. It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1]. [1] https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features
I agree, have an up vote. I wish this community was nice to each other, instead of telling you why your personal choice is wrong and and trying to prove that they are right. It's not about being right or wrong, because there is no right or wrong. Just tools to do the job. Ignore the haters, they will always exist. Just keep build great stuff.
Your comment reads better as disagreeing with the comment you responded to.
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying you won't use Rails because it's written in Ruby and not C. Also, it's nice to work in a language that has the right features and not just all the features. I like CoffeeScript as much for what it doesn't have as for what it does have. I recently saw this piece of code: new Array(26) .map(function (item, index) { return String.fromCharCode(65 + index); }) as a "heads up" for map lovers. That's the…
const caps = new Array(26).map((item, index) => String.fromCharCode(65 + index)); It's not wrong. Could maybe be better though.
Unfortunately that won't work as expected, you'll need something ugly like:
Array.apply(null, Array(26)).map((_, index) => String.fromCharCode(65 + index))Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#38This would interest me more if there was a good automatic build process for it (in the style of node-grunt-webkit-builder).
As it is you still have to do a bunch of the packaging manually (or design your own shell script for it), and for whatever inane reason, `npm install electron-prebuilt` only downloads the binary for your current platform, so you can't even make a replicable build process by using it as a base and using scripts that copy the different binaries.
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#39That's a seriously confusing name. I thought this was a physics story of some kind. Additionally it's also a bad name because it's impossible to google.
It's not any more difficult to Google than "Go", or "Python". I mean, we're talking about board games and snakes, right? :)
And those are in fact bad names. Just because they are used and popular doesn't make them good names.
I forget which language it was, but someone interviewed the creator and he said if he had to do anything different he would not have named it something so hard to google.
Re: Atom Shell is now Electron
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
To all the sibling commenters defending the merits of CoffeeScript: - https://discuss.atom.io/t/why-coffeescript/131 - https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-better-for-discourse-to-u...
Translation: "more people know JavaScript than CoffeeScript, so you shouldn't bother with CoffeeScript" More people are familiar with Notepad than vi. Does that make vi a bad choice?
> More people are familiar with Notepad than vi. Does that make vi a bad choice?
That analogy doesn't work, because editors don't have network effects, whereas programming languages do.