21–30 of 118 posts
Would some node.js experts mind weighing in here with pros and cons of this framework as they see it? I'm too new to node to really understand the tradeoffs here. Thanks!
Would some node.js experts mind weighing in here with pros and cons of this framework as they see it? I'm too new to node to really understand the tradeoffs here. Thanks!
Second. While I'm no expert, I did attend a Node.js Bootcamp this past weekend. One of the topics brought up was Coffeescript and how unwieldily it can be, especially if you mix it with straight-up Javascript, and by extension jQuery. While avoiding any new FUD, and since Tower.js is Coffeescript and jQuery top heavy, wouldn't this inevitably lead to conflicts? (Side note, at the bootcamp the framework recommended wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the down voters: My comment is civil and explannatory. You may not like my sentiments, but down votes are not intended for unpopularity. Not only that, but in this case, my comment serves to reinforce the standards of HN regarding mis-titling of links and it is being downvoted. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
"a language I have not bothered to learn, nor do I plan to anytime soon" That's why I down voted you. Is a JS compiler beneath you? Fine. Then post about that. Don't try to slip it into a veiled complaint about title accuracy.
Thanks for the efforts and the framework. Unfortunately, I cannot properly appreciate it for the following reason: Please don't call something JavaScript if it's actually all in CoffeeScript (even if it's just the documentation). A lot of us have not bothered to learn CoffeeScript and a good many of them have no intention of doing so. My time was wasted following a link that says "JavaScript", a language I know well,…
To the down voters: My comment is civil and explannatory. You may not like my sentiments, but down votes are not intended for unpopularity. Not only that, but in this case, my comment serves to reinforce the standards of HN regarding mis-titling of links and it is being downvoted. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I am currently working on two projects written predominantly in CoffeeScript, and I completely agree with your original post. It is a mistake to think of CoffeeScript as simply another Javascript, and it is a mistake to make the assumption that people that are comfortable with Javascript will be comfortable within a CoffeeScript project.
CoffeeScript is more than just Javascript with a small sprinkling of syntactic sugar. There is a definite learning curve between Javascript and CoffeeScript. List comprehensions, extended regular expressions, and splats - these are just a few of the things that make up that learning curve. The changes in variable scoping that CoffeeScript makes is another.
I think that perhaps the best practice for publishing a CoffeeScript project should probably be to append a .coffee to the name rather than the usual .js. This would go a long way towards eliminating the kind of misunderstanding that you refer to in your OP.
Would some node.js experts mind weighing in here with pros and cons of this framework as they see it? I'm too new to node to really understand the tradeoffs here. Thanks!
Second. While I'm no expert, I did attend a Node.js Bootcamp this past weekend. One of the topics brought up was Coffeescript and how unwieldily it can be, especially if you mix it with straight-up Javascript, and by extension jQuery. While avoiding any new FUD, and since Tower.js is Coffeescript and jQuery top heavy, wouldn't this inevitably lead to conflicts? (Side note, at the bootcamp the framework recommended wa…
CoffeeScript semantics are just JavaScript semantics, which means that CoffeeScript can seamlessly use any JavaScript library, and vice versa, without any special effort needing to be made. This is perhaps the most significant difference between CoffeeScript and most other compile-to-JS languages (https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-lang...).
The one feature that you might find yourself relying on in a project like Tower.js is easy access to the prototypal inheritance found in CoffeeScript's "class" keyword ... but you can easily have your library expose that as a helper function.
Thanks for the efforts and the framework. Unfortunately, I cannot properly appreciate it for the following reason: Please don't call something JavaScript if it's actually all in CoffeeScript (even if it's just the documentation). A lot of us have not bothered to learn CoffeeScript and a good many of them have no intention of doing so. My time was wasted following a link that says "JavaScript", a language I know well,…
If you love being ignorant of CoffeeScript enough to publicly form your identity around it then stop being in denial about your tone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second. While I'm no expert, I did attend a Node.js Bootcamp this past weekend. One of the topics brought up was Coffeescript and how unwieldily it can be, especially if you mix it with straight-up Javascript, and by extension jQuery. While avoiding any new FUD, and since Tower.js is Coffeescript and jQuery top heavy, wouldn't this inevitably lead to conflicts? (Side note, at the bootcamp the framework recommended wa…
Then I'm sorry to inform you that some FUD did indeed rub off on you at your Node.js Bootcamp... CoffeeScript semantics are just JavaScript semantics, which means that CoffeeScript can seamlessly use any JavaScript library, and vice versa, without any special effort needing to be made. This is perhaps the most significant difference between CoffeeScript and most other compile-to-JS languages ( https://github.com/jash…
> CoffeeScript semantics are just JavaScript semantics, which means that CoffeeScript can seamlessly use any JavaScript library, and vice versa, without any special effort needing to be made.
> The one feature that you might find yourself relying on in a project like Tower.js is easy access to the prototypal inheritance found in CoffeeScript's "class" keyword ... but you can easily have your library expose that as a helper function.
Those two statement contradict each other. People who make libraries for CoffeeScript don't go to the trouble of writing a helper function. This doesn't. Batman.js doesn't.
So to consume this a JavaScript user needs to write (or use an existing) extends function. Not hard, but definitely qualifies as "special effort".
Thanks for the efforts and the framework. Unfortunately, I cannot properly appreciate it for the following reason: Please don't call something JavaScript if it's actually all in CoffeeScript (even if it's just the documentation). A lot of us have not bothered to learn CoffeeScript and a good many of them have no intention of doing so. My time was wasted following a link that says "JavaScript", a language I know well,…
It was the coffeescript that put me off too. I dont have anything against CS, i just dont want the additional overhead of having to learn it
Thanks for the efforts and the framework. Unfortunately, I cannot properly appreciate it for the following reason: Please don't call something JavaScript if it's actually all in CoffeeScript (even if it's just the documentation). A lot of us have not bothered to learn CoffeeScript and a good many of them have no intention of doing so. My time was wasted following a link that says "JavaScript", a language I know well,…
Really, no one's forcing you to write it. But if you have a working understanding of JavaScript and you can't read CoffeeScript fluently, it's because you aren't trying. Just swallow your pride and deal with it already.