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

Announcing CoffeeScript 2

coffeescript.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 220 posts

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#61

Post by markdog12 »

catacombs wrote: post #53
jashkenas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to answer, although this is a bit of a funny forum for it: From a work perspective, it's pretty simple. I quit, and then was rehired to the same position a year later. But The Times' Graphics Desk was super nice about it. We had a handshake agreement that I'd come back when I got back, and they even lent me a laptop to maybe file some travel-ish bits and bobs from along the road. So in that sense, it was partia…

I admit it is a funny forum to ask this, but, hey, here we are. Thanks for the response. It seems your situation was unique, and you're definitely fortunate to have a department willing to make this agreement. The Average Joe more than likely can't pull this off, especially if the company can hire a replacement.

I'd say NYT was fortunate to have him, and realized it.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#63

Post by santoriv »

catacombs wrote: post #47
kristiandupont wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's to stop the company from finding a replacement who can be up to speed with the code in a short amount of time? The fact that it's very, very hard and the competition is fierce? Also, this is not a romantic relationship we're talking about. If you leave your place of work, no matter how irreplaceable you are the company is going to carry on as best they can. If a year later you are available again and they sti…

The competition is fierce for whom? The company picking from a pool of developers, or the developers competing for the job? If the former, then the company is an advantageous position to pick someone from the pool. It's not like ZERO people will apply for the job. If you're talking about the latter, then it's irrelevant. I'm mainly focusing on the company.

I think that something else to take into consideration is that hiring good people is a non-trivial problem. Folks can do well in a interview and seem amicable and then turn out to be incompetent and/or jerks later. So there is substantial risk in hiring. It seems like knowing for certain that someone is competent and works well with the rest of the team is worth A LOT.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#64

Post by jashkenas »

chrisallenlane wrote: post #52
jashkenas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to answer, although this is a bit of a funny forum for it: From a work perspective, it's pretty simple. I quit, and then was rehired to the same position a year later. But The Times' Graphics Desk was super nice about it. We had a handshake agreement that I'd come back when I got back, and they even lent me a laptop to maybe file some travel-ish bits and bobs from along the road. So in that sense, it was partia…

> In the end I didn't end up writing anything for them I understand that you didn't write anything professionally about your trip, but did you ever write anything casually about it - blog posts or the like? It sounds like it would make for interesting reading :)

From roughly sketched map to marriage, it's all archived on Instagram. But I'm afraid there's nothing more than that written up ... yet.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#65

Post by irishsultan »

kbenson wrote: post #45
madeofpalk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coffeescript's => binds this. Javascript's => also binds this (more or less) Seems to map fairly well conceptually.

> Javascript's => also binds this (more or less) Javascript's => doesn't bind this though, and function does, which was my point (and is what the reference I included was saying). That's a specific change in JS, and either coffeescript had code in place to emulate the current behavior in prior versions where they used function(), or they have code in place now to emulate function() now that they're using =>. I'm goin…

Old Coffeescript behaviour for => was to use a function where this was bound to that of the environment. This seems subtly different from having this not being bound at all (in that you can't rebind it under the new translation), but that's unlikely to have been a common use case.

The main other difference seems to be that there is no arguments object for the local function anymore, although once again that's unlikely to be a problem in most functions defined with a fat arrow.

As someone else also said, there were two ways to define functions, one using =>, one using -> the latter maps to a normal JS function.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#66

Post by jashkenas »

DiThi wrote: post #51
williamdclt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did. And had to "decaffeinate" everything a few months later because it is hell to work with implicit returns, objects without brackets, no spread operator, significant whitespace, no variable declaration keyword... It really is a matter of taste, but the large majority of us didn't like it. It is pretty, but I felt like fighting against the language all the time (implicitly returning an bracketless object is not…

> implicit returns In my experience it has only been a problem when porting existing code bases. We only had to be a bit careful putting a return after a for loop at the end of a function so it doesn't build a list unnecessarily (otherwise implicit returns of unused random values don't hurt). For clarity, one of the few rules we have is to use return explicitly when a function is more than a single expression. > obje…

From the perspective of how it was intended to be used, you've got it exactly right. Just because you can implicitly return a braceless object, doesn't mean you should.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#67

Post by franze »

catacombs wrote: post #53
jashkenas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to answer, although this is a bit of a funny forum for it: From a work perspective, it's pretty simple. I quit, and then was rehired to the same position a year later. But The Times' Graphics Desk was super nice about it. We had a handshake agreement that I'd come back when I got back, and they even lent me a laptop to maybe file some travel-ish bits and bobs from along the road. So in that sense, it was partia…

I admit it is a funny forum to ask this, but, hey, here we are. Thanks for the response. It seems your situation was unique, and you're definitely fortunate to have a department willing to make this agreement. The Average Joe more than likely can't pull this off, especially if the company can hire a replacement.

actually I don't think it so uncommon. when you travel you meet a lot of people who just quit and can prop. go back to the job when / if they return.

just do it.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#68

Post by twykke »

ralmidani wrote: post #41

CoffeeScript is still very relevant for me. I have two medium-sized Ember projects written in CoffeeScript (and Emblem and Sass--the original, indented variety, thank you very much). I have been looking at React (will probably skip due to the patent license) and Vue, but cannot imagine going back to semicolons and (excessive) curly braces and parens. If you married CoffeeScript just out of convenience (being able to…

i also don't use CoffeeScript because of any 'feature' it has over standard JS but instead because of its concise but expressive syntax. it's less about what it does have/do, and more about what it doesn't have/do.

some small aspects of CS i forgo because they (in my opinion) are a little too concise such that they sacrifice readability, but all in all it has my favorite syntax of any language.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#69

Post by munificent »

jashkenas wrote: post #17
city41 wrote: post #10

I can't imagine CoffeeScript will see much adoption these days as most people seem to think ES6+ is "good enough". I miss how concise functions are in CoffeeScript and also miss being able to do object literals without the braces. But there's no chance at all in convincing my team to adopt it, as modern JS really is "good enough".

And that's totally fine! I don't get a chance to use it much these days either. But for the folks who still do — or have existing codebases — this update is for you.

I think it's worth remembering too that the reason JS is "good enough" for most these days is because of all of the great language features that you and friends put into CoffeeScript and which then got adopted by JS.

Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2

#70

Post by clairity »

city41 wrote: post #10

I can't imagine CoffeeScript will see much adoption these days as most people seem to think ES6+ is "good enough". I miss how concise functions are in CoffeeScript and also miss being able to do object literals without the braces. But there's no chance at all in convincing my team to adopt it, as modern JS really is "good enough".

i really wanted to like coffeescript, but the idea of compiling, transpiling or any other kind of piling of javascript just rubbed me the wrong way. this is true of scss, less and other css flavors too.

i understand the problems these tools are trying to solve, but i don't like that you have to learn two (or more) grammars and syntaxes, and the quirky interactions between them, to get those benefits (because you can't debug one without debugging the other). it's a lot more cognitive overhead for what amounts to a little syntactic sugar.

standard es-whatever javascript needs to be "good enough", and, despite my disdain for using coffeescript, the improvements that coffeescript induced in javascript are heartily welcomed.

Post reply on HN