TypeScript still seems the much better choice.
Unless those horrible semi-colons and braces scare you lol
Announcing CoffeeScript 2
91–100 of 220 posts
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#92Since you were changing everything, I thought it would include a bunch of new revolutionary syntax and features, just like Coffeescript 1 did many years ago and made the world jump into ES6+.
Since this is just keeping up with the already existing ES6, why would anyone bother to move from ES6 to Coffee?
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#93I 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".
Oh, object literals without the braces, how much I miss you!
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't answer for him. but it would seem to me that there is a pretty universal shortage of quality developers, much less superstar developers familiar with your existing codebase. Rehiring him would be a no-brainer.
jashkenas is a graphics editor, not a developer. Your point still stands though.
Created CoffeeScript, Backbone, Underscore, but not a developer?
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#95Jeremy, First off thank you for Underscore, Backbone and CoffeeScript. Your work really has helped me and my development team. This question is a little off topic but one I've been wanting to ask for a long time: Last year you took a year off from The New York Times to ride your motorcycle across the Western Hemisphere. Just recently you were hired back at the paper, doing what it appears to be the same thing in the…
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15276996 and marked it off-topic.
It most certainly is. Thanks, mods!
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I personally think calling .map() on an array is more readable than an array comprehension. But since CS is "just JavaScript" you are free to use the native JS array methods (and even more elegantly, at that).
list comprehensions was exactly what i was talking about :) however i replace them with lodash and ramda, which benefit enormously from CS's lambda syntax
I wish this line of thinking was more common. So many people feel forced to use parts of a language when you don't have to.
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#97As much as I love CoffeeScript (because I love Python), I think over time the project is loosing it's value due to ES6 (Frankly I believe even TypeScript is going to suffer the same plague soon). One possible incentive for me might be the toolkit and the pre-built stuff that I can get out of box from such transpilers (JSX is a good addition for example, however I am surprised why something like PUG, or HAML was not adopted instead of JSX from syntax perspective). None the less I greatly appreciate the hard work team is doing and look forward for stuff like pattern patching and some functional inspirations.
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#98As much as I love CoffeeScript (because I love Python), I think over time the project is loosing it's value due to ES6 (Frankly I believe even TypeScript is going to suffer the same plague soon). One possible incentive for me might be the toolkit and the pre-built stuff that I can get out of box from such transpilers (JSX is a good addition for example, however I am surprised why something like PUG, or HAML was not a…
ES6 solves some of the problems CoffeeScript solved back in the day. It's still verbose, still full of "line noise".
JSX wasn't adopted by CS2 at all. It's just that certain things are passed unmolested into the compiled output, which happens to make it jsx compatible. Other similar preprocessors would work, too.
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#99As much as I love CoffeeScript (because I love Python), I think over time the project is loosing it's value due to ES6 (Frankly I believe even TypeScript is going to suffer the same plague soon). One possible incentive for me might be the toolkit and the pre-built stuff that I can get out of box from such transpilers (JSX is a good addition for example, however I am surprised why something like PUG, or HAML was not a…
> loosing it's value due to ES6 (Frankly I believe even TypeScript is going to suffer the same plague soon)
Why would ES6 being more widely adopted hurt TypeScript? TypeScript is and always has been ES6 compatible. Are you imagining people would suddenly lose interest in static typing?
Re: Announcing CoffeeScript 2
#100TypeScript still seems the much better choice.
For certain situations or teams, yes. For others, no.