4 ms·

This is good! Now take away all the unnecessary references to that pile of junk that is ruby and it'll be great.

tracker1 11y ago
I don't know that I agree with that... a lot of the syntax definitely burrows from Ruby, but then again so does CoffeeScript... this actually looks a lot like CoffeeScript with embedded razor templating. I think this is either developed by or targeted at people with a ruby background, and does give some context. I'm actually more happy with something closer to JS (EX6/7 transpiling) with React (JSX) than something like this. Usually when you approach headaches on larger teams with JS, it's more that you haven't broken things down as well as you can/should more than a language construct. JS projects tend to work far better from discrete separations of components, views, functions and composites... simple components can be thought of react components that only use properties for rendering, views are a composition of components that use stores for state interaction. Functions are modules that have singular discrete testable functionality and composites are similar to classes but yeild an object tethered to state/options but mainly glued together from modules that expose a single workflow function. There's also control/workflow type composition, and node-style object pipes tend to work very well in many of those scenarios... get batch of items from db into an object stream through workflow steps, queues, etc. It's definitely an interesting abstraction of a few ideas together, I'm not sure what it does in terms of improving a larger workflow. Other than a more wrist friendly syntax.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
This tool is forked from Coffeescript, which is deliberately designed to resemble Ruby. There's a good reason for that – some aspects of Ruby's syntax are well-loved. It might be more effective for you to use your time understanding why these aspects are important, since you apparently feel this project is good, and less time being a bit of a dick about it.
- pluma 11y ago
  > some aspects of Ruby's syntax are well-loved. By Ruby programmers. Why is it that Ruby programmers are incapable of imagining anyone doesn't love Ruby? This isn't a universal truth for all programmers either. I've met plenty Java programmers willing to admit the shortcomings of Java, I've met PHP programmers painfully aware of the language's warts, I've even met Python programmers willing to admit Python's limitations. I've yet to meet a Ruby programmer who doesn't believe that Ruby is the best thing since sliced Jesus.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > By Ruby programmers. As well as by not-Ruby programmers, which is why they keep getting used in non-Ruby languages that don't keep other aspects of Ruby. > Why is it that Ruby programmers are incapable of imagining anyone doesn't love Ruby? I think most Ruby programmers are capable of understanding that lots of people don't like Ruby, and more importantly that lots of people don't like aspects of Ruby that those Ruby programmers find most attractive. Sure, some Ruby programmers have problems with this, but, OTOH, some non-Ruby programmers seem incapable of understanding that other non-Ruby programmers might find some aspects of Ruby attractive that they, themselves, do not. > I've met plenty Java programmers willing to admit the shortcomings of Java Well, sure, the more likely you are to be compelled to use a language because of corporate inertia, the more likely people that actually do use it will be the people that don't like it and use it under duress. So I'd expect Java to be among the languages with the highest proportion of active programmers who not only are willing to admit its shortcoming, but who outright despise it. > I've yet to meet a Ruby programmer who doesn't believe that Ruby is the best thing since sliced Jesus. Given the number of non-Ruby programming languages created with substantial input from (or even under the leadership of) people in the Ruby community specifically because, while they like many things about Ruby, they find it not optimal for some uses, I think this says a lot more about your limited exposure to the Ruby community than about the Ruby community itself.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    By Ruby programmers. And clearly other people – or we wouldn't be seeing those syntax elements in other languages. Why is it that Ruby programmers are incapable of imagining anyone doesn't love Ruby? They're perfectly capable of that, and I think you've let your own prejudices cloud your judgement. I've yet to meet a Ruby programmer who doesn't believe that Ruby is the best thing since sliced Jesus. Hello, pleased to meet you. I'm a mostly-Ruby programmer who is well aware that the language is not suited to every task. Need high performance? Look elsewhere. Need a highly reliable service? Something that would benefit from static typing? Systems-level tools? Same. Ruby is a pain to deploy and has lots of irritating legacy cruft. What this doesn't mean is that the statement "that pile of junk that is ruby" is anything other than a fucking stupid thing to say.

I don't know that I agree with that... a lot of the syntax definitely burrows from Ruby, but then again so does CoffeeScript... this actually looks a lot like CoffeeScript with embedded razor templating. I think this is either developed by or targeted at people with a ruby background, and does give some context. I'm actually more happy with something closer to JS (EX6/7 transpiling) with React (JSX) than something like this. Usually when you approach headaches on larger teams with JS, it's more that you haven't broken things down as well as you can/should more than a language construct. JS projects tend to work far better from discrete separations of components, views, functions and composites... simple components can be thought of react components that only use properties for rendering, views are a composition of components that use stores for state interaction. Functions are modules that have singular discrete testable functionality and composites are similar to classes but yeild an object tethered to state/options but mainly glued together from modules that expose a single workflow function. There's also control/workflow type composition, and node-style object pipes tend to work very well in many of those scenarios... get batch of items from db into an object stream through workflow steps, queues, etc. It's definitely an interesting abstraction of a few ideas together, I'm not sure what it does in terms of improving a larger workflow. Other than a more wrist friendly syntax.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

This tool is forked from Coffeescript, which is deliberately designed to resemble Ruby. There's a good reason for that – some aspects of Ruby's syntax are well-loved. It might be more effective for you to use your time understanding why these aspects are important, since you apparently feel this project is good, and less time being a bit of a dick about it.

pluma 11y ago
> some aspects of Ruby's syntax are well-loved. By Ruby programmers. Why is it that Ruby programmers are incapable of imagining anyone doesn't love Ruby? This isn't a universal truth for all programmers either. I've met plenty Java programmers willing to admit the shortcomings of Java, I've met PHP programmers painfully aware of the language's warts, I've even met Python programmers willing to admit Python's limitations. I've yet to meet a Ruby programmer who doesn't believe that Ruby is the best thing since sliced Jesus.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > By Ruby programmers. As well as by not-Ruby programmers, which is why they keep getting used in non-Ruby languages that don't keep other aspects of Ruby. > Why is it that Ruby programmers are incapable of imagining anyone doesn't love Ruby? I think most Ruby programmers are capable of understanding that lots of people don't like Ruby, and more importantly that lots of people don't like aspects of Ruby that those Ruby programmers find most attractive. Sure, some Ruby programmers have problems with this, but, OTOH, some non-Ruby programmers seem incapable of understanding that other non-Ruby programmers might find some aspects of Ruby attractive that they, themselves, do not. > I've met plenty Java programmers willing to admit the shortcomings of Java Well, sure, the more likely you are to be compelled to use a language because of corporate inertia, the more likely people that actually do use it will be the people that don't like it and use it under duress. So I'd expect Java to be among the languages with the highest proportion of active programmers who not only are willing to admit its shortcoming, but who outright despise it. > I've yet to meet a Ruby programmer who doesn't believe that Ruby is the best thing since sliced Jesus. Given the number of non-Ruby programming languages created with substantial input from (or even under the leadership of) people in the Ruby community specifically because, while they like many things about Ruby, they find it not optimal for some uses, I think this says a lot more about your limited exposure to the Ruby community than about the Ruby community itself.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  By Ruby programmers. And clearly other people – or we wouldn't be seeing those syntax elements in other languages. Why is it that Ruby programmers are incapable of imagining anyone doesn't love Ruby? They're perfectly capable of that, and I think you've let your own prejudices cloud your judgement. I've yet to meet a Ruby programmer who doesn't believe that Ruby is the best thing since sliced Jesus. Hello, pleased to meet you. I'm a mostly-Ruby programmer who is well aware that the language is not suited to every task. Need high performance? Look elsewhere. Need a highly reliable service? Something that would benefit from static typing? Systems-level tools? Same. Ruby is a pain to deploy and has lots of irritating legacy cruft. What this doesn't mean is that the statement "that pile of junk that is ruby" is anything other than a fucking stupid thing to say.