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

Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

towerjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#71

Post by jashkenas »

untog wrote: post #66
Cushman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you know JavaScript well and haven't bothered to "learn" the second-most-popular dialect? Take ten minutes right now and read through the CoffeeScript reference-- poof, you learned it. It is just JavaScript. 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 i…

you know JavaScript well and haven't bothered to "learn" the second-most-popular dialect? Come on, what kind of percentage are we talking about here? Tiny. Absolutely tiny. Take ten minutes right now and read through the CoffeeScript reference-- poof, you learned it. It is just JavaScript. Well, you haven't learned it unless you memorised absolutely every aspect of it, which you're unlikely to do on a first read. And…

For better or for worse, not so "tiny, tiny" anymore: http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2012/02/08/language-rankings-2-20...

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#72

Post by eagsalazar »

blindhippo wrote: post #21
matt2000 wrote: post #11

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!

In addition to matt2000's question - I'd also like someone to explain when a node.js rails inspired framework would a better option then a standard rails or symfony based application.

Assuming this framework is as mature and full featured as Rails (which I doubt), then hell yes this would be awesome compared to using Rails. Also you have to assume you (and other devs) are equally proficient in both languages.

The reasons:

- DRY! Use the same templates/models/controllers/i18n/validations on server and client! I can't underestimate how awesome that would be.

- One fewer languages to learn and switch back and forth between

- Team flexiblity. No such things as "front end guys" or "back end guys" (sorry girls)

- MASSIVE improvement in debugging. Debugging in Ruby is just bizarrely crappy. Really WTF? How is this possible. Anyway it sucks badly but is pretty decent in JS. (assuming stack traces were decent, this is easy to screw up in js)

Plus there are the inherent benefits of using node (arguable) where you could do push notifications/websockets/etc trivially and in a well integrated way instead of having to... use node (or faye/whatever) or running some other server.

Some people might argue that js/coffee script suck compared to Ruby and cite that as an advantage but I for one love js (and ruby but less so) so I don't care.

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#73

Post by eldude »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #67
eldude wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to reply to my own comment in order to address the numerous responses all at once. First, I'll establish some modest authority on the subject by pointing out that I've worked directly with Tim Caswell, who helped create CoffeeScript, at multiple jobs now. He's explained to me how they developed it and we've discussed the merits of it. Second, I don't believe CoffeeScript is lacking merit. I make no claims o…

What I as one of your downvoters argue is that it doesn't take more than an hour to learn CoffeeScript. I don't believe anyone is arguing that it should be labeled as JS when it's CS. What made me downvote both your original and this comment is that I can't accept that you (seemingly) write a lot of code in JS, but don't want to spen just 1 hour to learn CS properly (I know it takes this short, because I just did it…

This pervasive assumption of CoffeeScript's superiority as a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. There are so many excellent JavaScript programmers that choose not to program in CoffeeScript for so many reasons, that it's surprising to see the extent of this assumption. Defend the merits of CoffeeScript all you want, I'm not even bothering to argue with you about them, and _I even conceded already that it does in fact have merit._ However, if at JSConf this year, I start seeing a bunch of projects presented in CoffeeScript, but advertised as JavaScript, I'm going to simultaneously be incredibly annoyed at the presumptions of such behavior while I learn CoffeeScript in order to follow along because it will have crossed the threshold.

My original point still stands that this is a mislabeled title. If this is JavaScript, and I know JavaScript, then I'd be able to understand the code without learning something else. Yes, again, I _could_ go learn that thing and thus understand the documentation as I almost certainly eventually will, but how disingenuous of the CoffeeScript community to refuse to call CoffeeScript by its name, expecting _everyone else_ to learn CoffeeScript in order to treat it as equivalent, when it very clearly is not. Just be straightforward and call it CoffeeScript _because you think CoffeeScript is awesome_.

Why on earth is this disturbingly so objectionable?

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#74

Post by eldude »

jashkenas wrote: post #71
untog wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you know JavaScript well and haven't bothered to "learn" the second-most-popular dialect? Come on, what kind of percentage are we talking about here? Tiny. Absolutely tiny. Take ten minutes right now and read through the CoffeeScript reference-- poof, you learned it. It is just JavaScript. Well, you haven't learned it unless you memorised absolutely every aspect of it, which you're unlikely to do on a first read. And…

For better or for worse, not so "tiny, tiny" anymore: http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2012/02/08/language-rankings-2-20...

I wonder how much of CoffeeScript's prevalence on Github can be contributed to existing projects ported from JavaScript. Either way it's not a particularly important point as CoffeeScript is a "dialect" as everyone likes to say and not a language, so this will likely always more or less be the case, surprising nonetheless.

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#75

Post by chc »

ctide wrote: post #68
chc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It generates JavaScript. If you want to read JavaScript, it's there for you to do.

I think you'll have a hard time running their documentation through the Coffeescript compiler.

I know, I must have been reading way too quickly. I thought he believed the actual code had to be in CoffeeScript, so I was explaining that it can compile to relatively readable JavaScript. When I came back and reread my comment, I wanted to edit or delete it, but it was already past the two-hour mark. I do agree, it seems rather silly to have the docs for a JavaScript framework written in CoffeeScript.

As sort of an apology, I wrote up a little bookmarklet to translate the page into JavaScript at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641217

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#77

Post by eldude »

thelastnode wrote: post #49

Regarding the Coffeescript-Javascript difference, Coffeescript and Javascript can be used transparently in node. Once require('coffee-script') is run, the module replaces the require function with one that can load both Coffeescript and Javascript. This means that if there is a file ./lib/foo.coffee, the following code in bar.js will work: require('coffee-script'); var foo = require('./lib/foo'); Yes, some people may…

That's pretty cool. I didn't know that worked so seemlessly.

Nonetheless, in order to use a library, you must either read the documentation or the source. The biggest issue is that most CoffeeScript projects document with CoffeeScript. Technically, you could read the compiled source, but that's usually a non-starter unless I truly need your project. Otherwise, I'm more likely to find someone else that's solved the same problem, but has written their docs / source in JavaScript.

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#78

Post by moe »

Who cares?

There is express, geddy, railwayjs, djangode, drty, Locomotive, spludo and probably a few others that I missed. All of them are modeled after rails/django.

The last thing the node-ecosystem needs is yet another half-baked rails-clone.

This may come across harsh but I really don't understand why people keep beating that dead horse instead of tackling the node-vision: Build a framework that spans client/server. Make it good. Start by not pouring your time into yet another rails-clone...

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#79

Post by JangoSteve »

zalew wrote: post #39
franze wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

learning is the overhead with the best return on investment.

not everybody wants to jump into learning solutions that solve other people problems, prefer to learn the ones that solve theirs. if someone doesn't need coffeescript, there's no ROI.

If you think that tower may solve your problem and the only obstacle is that it's written in coffeescript, then learning coffescript is now solving your problem.

Re: Tower.js - JavaScript Framework for Node.js modeled after Ruby on Rails

#80

Post by tjholowaychuk »

eldude wrote: post #73
pooriaazimi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I as one of your downvoters argue is that it doesn't take more than an hour to learn CoffeeScript. I don't believe anyone is arguing that it should be labeled as JS when it's CS. What made me downvote both your original and this comment is that I can't accept that you (seemingly) write a lot of code in JS, but don't want to spen just 1 hour to learn CS properly (I know it takes this short, because I just did it…

This pervasive assumption of CoffeeScript's superiority as a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. There are so many excellent JavaScript programmers that choose not to program in CoffeeScript for so many reasons, that it's surprising to see the extent of this assumption. Defend the merits of CoffeeScript all you want, I'm not even bothering to argue with you about them, and _I even conceded already that it does in fact…

+1

I've never disliked the fact that it was built, everyone has fun playing around with little transpiler things but it's turned into some retarded religious warfare. The show-stopper for me is when it gets to the point of pull-requests containing "Add coffeescript support". Once you go that far it's just flat-out wrong

Post reply on HN