Live data from Hacker News

CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

coffeescript.org

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#21
post #17
post #14

Please forgive me for intruding the holyness of CoffeeScript, but I always found and always will find CoffeeScript appaling and unusable. A wrapper for otherwise syntactically and otherwise perfectly readable and codeable JavaScript? Come on guys. Just learn JS, will you?

You're still coding in assembler I assume?

The difference between assembly and (for example) C is vast. The difference between JS and CS is much smaller.

Whether the difference in usability and maintainability is worth the extra layer of complexity is an important question.

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#22
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still coding in assembler I assume?

Why do that when you already have perfectly readable patterns of bits.

It's important to use zerospace to make your bits more readable! For instance:

    0010000
    0000110
    0000101
    0000100
    0011000

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#24

For folks that are curious, we wanted to get these changes out the door -- strict mode syntax errors being a big one -- so that source maps can be the focus of the next release (probably 1.4.0).

Regarding source maps... it feels like the solution to the wrong problem. Why are we still pushing minified/obfuscated Javascript to the browser anyway? What's wrong with standardizing on a bytecode format instead (e.g. JVM)?

That's a bit like asking why I work out instead of snapping my fingers and turning into a Greek demigod. One is clearly preferable on its own merits — but it's just not going to happen any time soon.

Source maps are relatively easy: There's a public standard, a couple of browser makers have agreed to it, and it doesn't need universal acceptance since it's only for development. Basically, it doesn't require a lot of coordination.

A universal bytecode is almost the exact opposite — easy to describe in the abstract, but a coordination nightmare. I've never heard an actionable plan for making it happen. Just getting the community to agree on a standard bytecode would be a Herculean task†, and then you have to get Apple, Google, Mozilla and Microsoft to all say, "Yes, I'm willing to chain my VM to this bytecode at significant engineering expense."

Basically, feel free to work on this if you want, but you can't expect everybody else to hold their breath until it happens.

You might think that "Herculean task" is an exaggeration, but just look at how much discussion and compromise was needed to get agreement on stabby function syntax for Harmony. And still people kvetched even once there was "agreement"!

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#25

Oof. Embarrassingly enough, I just bumped us to 1.3.1 -- there was an overly-strict patch that would prevent compound assignments to undeclared global variables, like this: global.value or= 1 ... which should now compile properly as expected.

Looks like the REPL is still affected, though: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/1829#issue...

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#26
post #14

Please forgive me for intruding the holyness of CoffeeScript, but I always found and always will find CoffeeScript appaling and unusable. A wrapper for otherwise syntactically and otherwise perfectly readable and codeable JavaScript? Come on guys. Just learn JS, will you?

> always will find CoffeeScript appaling and unusable. ... otherwise perfectly ... codeable JavaScript?

Wait, are you being sarcastic?

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#27
post #14

Please forgive me for intruding the holyness of CoffeeScript, but I always found and always will find CoffeeScript appaling and unusable. A wrapper for otherwise syntactically and otherwise perfectly readable and codeable JavaScript? Come on guys. Just learn JS, will you?

I already know JavaScript, and prefer CoffeeScript. But thanks for sharing your irrelevant opinion, and enjoy your false sense of superiority.

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#28

For folks that are curious, we wanted to get these changes out the door -- strict mode syntax errors being a big one -- so that source maps can be the focus of the next release (probably 1.4.0).

Regarding source maps... it feels like the solution to the wrong problem. Why are we still pushing minified/obfuscated Javascript to the browser anyway? What's wrong with standardizing on a bytecode format instead (e.g. JVM)?

I'll never understand the bytecode zealots and their insistence that browser makers scrap the years of JavaScript optimization they've done and start from scratch on some new format that will likely take another 10 or 15 years to get right.

You have what you want. You don't have to right in JavaScript any more. There are dozens of alternatives, and there are only going to be more. Source maps means you'll never even have to look at JavaScript. Please be happy!

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#29
post #11

"CoffeeScript now prints a Generated by CoffeeScript VERSION header at the top of each compiled file." From what I can tell there's no switch to optionally disable this? I can see how it could be useful to keep unaware developers from making js changes in compiled files, but other than that, what other purpose does this serve?

The most important thing it does is tell you which version of CoffeeScript was used to generate the file. Inevitably, as more and more coffee-generated-JavaScript begins to wind up in more places, we don't want to end up in a situation where you have to use trial and error, or distant memory, to figure out which version to use to rebuild the JS.

This is not necessary since you usually add the CS version to your dev dependencies (package.json). That should be enough. The resulting JS should not show any reference to CS at all.

Re: CoffeeScript 1.3.0 is out

#30
post #14

Please forgive me for intruding the holyness of CoffeeScript, but I always found and always will find CoffeeScript appaling and unusable. A wrapper for otherwise syntactically and otherwise perfectly readable and codeable JavaScript? Come on guys. Just learn JS, will you?

We have learned JS, probably you forgot that you need to know it to learn CS?
Post reply on HN