4 ms·
> Is there a good reason not to use a syntactically cleaner language ... I find Coffeescript hard to read. Especially when dealing with nested callbacks (e.x.:
by exception_e 11y ago
> Is there a good reason not to use a syntactically cleaner language ...
I find Coffeescript hard to read. Especially when dealing with nested callbacks (e.x.: when you have to nest, such as with Jasmine `describe` and `it` blocks for testing).
Here's an interesting thread on the "cons" of using Coffeescript: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6527316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6527316
- hillsidefm 11y agoFair enough. Maybe CoffeeScript specifically isn't the answer. But the general idea of compiling neater languages into JavaScript strikes me as a better long-term solution than settling for its current syntactical warts, which are entirely historical accidents. I do like ES6!
- exception_e 11y agoI agree. Language features such as async/await (ES7) are exciting.
- ludamad 11y agoI am excited by async/await but it makes code non-trivially harder to debug. The tools are far from there
- marcus_holmes 11y agoI think ES6 is the solution. Evolve JS and remove the "warts" instead of introducing new variants. I'm a big JS fan. I can't stand Coffeescript - it doesn't seem to add anything except changing the syntax to make it easier for Rubyists to understand. Which is fine, I guess, but feels like a personal preference. More like a text editor setting than something anyone should publish their code in. Same for Typescript, to a certain extent, though I understand the heartfelt desire to have the compiler pick up some of the more common errors. We run the risk of fragmenting the community by promoting CS and TS - better to evolve JS itself, which is what is happening and it's great. TL;DR: kill Coffeescript and Typescript, evolve Javascript for the win!