Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

#41

Post by tinco »

rjd wrote: post #34

So... I hope this isn't the future of updates to open source projects... crowd fund us or we won't do it... starting to see a pattern projects using this technique (albeit none are out rightly saying them won't its just implied)... not sure its a healthy development myself.

It is an excellent development. It means developers can finally start to live from _independent_ open source development. This is not and never will be a replacement for hobby opensource, because that is done by developers who just want to do it, it would not make sense for them to threaten to not do it if we don't give them money. This is for the people who contribute to opensource, but also have a day job developing low-impact closed source commercial software, who don't have time or energy for large refactorings and rewrites.

"Crowd fund us or we won't do it" sure is a lot better than "We won't do it".

Re: CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

#42

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

michaelficarra wrote: post #19
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will suggest a few alternatives: Winescript, Caffèscript, Browniscript, Shortscript and Rubyscript.

The names I suggested were "CoffeeScript: Reloaded", "CoffeeScript Episode II: Attack of the Clones", "The CoffeeScript Supremacy", and "Live Free or CoffeeScript Hard". Technically, right now it's "CoffeeScript II: The Wrath of Khan". Jeremy suggested CoffeeScript Redux. That's probably the best choice, though a little boring.

I'd personally suggest 'CoffeeScript vs Predator' too.

Since naming after desserts and alliterative animals has already been done, I wholeheartedly support action film naming conventions.

Re: CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

#43

Post by mistercow »

ajross wrote: post #21
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wants to remove semicolons except where absolutely necessary? Is he nuts? The compiled output shouldn't be relying on an error-correction feature. Especially since it might break minifiers and validators.

I recognize the minifier significance. But wait, there are validators (!?) that choke on valid (!) syntax?

Also, any minifier that turns valid javascript into invalid javascript is broken, full stop.

Re: CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

#44

Post by mistercow »

charliesome wrote: post #36
yuchi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already a production ready transpiler, and a big bunch of production code to test against every new transpiler. Why do you think this is going to be a reason for fragmentation? And, by the way, coffeescript is not intended to be a language for hackers (I mean, only for hackers) but for Ruby programmers moving to javascript, JS programmers looking for a more terse syntax and programmers with an eye for tersene…

Please stop saying 'transpiler'. The CoffeeScript compiler is no less deserving of the term than any other compiler.

"Transpiler" is a subset of "compiler", so it can hardly be a demeaning term. A transpiler is simply a compiler that translates code from language A to language B where A and B have roughly the same abstraction level. It is true that CoffeeScript is slightly more abstract than JavaScript in a few features (although JavaScript's inheritance model is more abstract than CoffeeScript's classes, for example), but any difference in abstraction level is tiny compared to the difference between, say, C and assembly.

Re: CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

#45

Post by ajross »

mistercow wrote: post #43
ajross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize the minifier significance. But wait, there are validators (!?) that choke on valid (!) syntax?

Also, any minifier that turns valid javascript into invalid javascript is broken, full stop.

Yes yes, but some do, it was a giant flame war, and I'll admit that it can be a practical issue (if not a correctness one) for javascript to rely on automatic semicolon insertion if it means you can't use your minifier of choice.

But trying to use a "validator" that validates a languages other than the one you are writing is just plain insane.

Re: CoffeeScript2 - A Redesign of the CoffeeScript Compiler

#46

Post by yuchi »

mistercow wrote: post #44
charliesome wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop saying 'transpiler'. The CoffeeScript compiler is no less deserving of the term than any other compiler.

"Transpiler" is a subset of "compiler", so it can hardly be a demeaning term. A transpiler is simply a compiler that translates code from language A to language B where A and B have roughly the same abstraction level. It is true that CoffeeScript is slightly more abstract than JavaScript in a few features (although JavaScript's inheritance model is more abstract than CoffeeScript's classes, for example), but any diff…

Exactly what I wanted to reply.
Post reply on HN