4 ms·

I loved CoffeeScript, but I felt it was a double edged sword. I would still use it though, if there were JSX style xml/html tags. But React changed everything

I loved CoffeeScript, but I felt it was a double edged sword. I would still use it though, if there were JSX style xml/html tags. But React changed everything for me and as a full stack dev, I can use only few frameworks on one level. Edit: Ok, JSX is now supported. http://coffeescript.org/v2/#jsx http://coffeescript.org/v2/#jsx And I'm glad they broke the different behaviour of =>. It might need a fix in a lot of code bases, but this price is cheaper than having the mental burden of it.

rapind 9y ago
I personally can't stand jsx, and coffeescript makes it so much nicer to avoid when using React. It's almost like haml / slim / jade / pug if you know what I mean. I wrote a comparison about it a couple years ago: http://rapin.com/blog/2015/02/03/reactjs-with-coffeescript/ http://rapin.com/blog/2015/02/03/reactjs-with-coffeescript/ I'm not doing much react these days (cough elm), but I think it's still mostly relevant.
- desireco42 9y ago
  Yeah, Elm is the bomb! Had to grin when I saw your comment. I am really happy with this refactor of Coffeescript but Elm is what I do.
- cies 9y ago
  Elm... And not to forget PureScript... and to a lesser extend ReasonML (by which you can still use React and JSX)... and Haskell/GHCJS. There are quite a lot of ways to seek refuge from both type scarcity and the "semicolon" line noise that was mentioned. Here some benchmarks for several of the FWs that are popular in these languages (Elm has the FW built-in, ReasonML-React is missing but should be close to React.js). https://medium.com/@saurabhnanda/benchmarks-fp-languages-libraries-for-front-end-development-a11af0542f7e https://medium.com/@saurabhnanda/benchmarks-fp-languages-lib...
ddlsmurf 9y ago
I'm not a big fan of the new =>, it means the arguments variable will have parent scope in => but not in ->, it kind of erodes into coffeescript's elegance/consistency imho, unless I'm missing something ?
- rmetzler 9y ago
  I never used => but when JavaScript introduced the fat arrow and made it different from the fat arrow in CoffeeScript, this introduced a mental barrier for me. By definition, the JavaScript fat arrow is the important one to know.
- DiThi 9y ago
  You can always add an splat to use instead of arguments: (args...) =>
  - ddlsmurf 9y ago
    Sure, but there used to be a strong performance advantage when using the arguments variable with function.apply, also editing arguments' values affected named parameters' values (not sure that's desirable, but you know, semantics)

rapind 9y ago

I personally can't stand jsx, and coffeescript makes it so much nicer to avoid when using React. It's almost like haml / slim / jade / pug if you know what I mean. I wrote a comparison about it a couple years ago: http://rapin.com/blog/2015/02/03/reactjs-with-coffeescript/ http://rapin.com/blog/2015/02/03/reactjs-with-coffeescript/ I'm not doing much react these days (cough elm), but I think it's still mostly relevant.

desireco42 9y ago
Yeah, Elm is the bomb! Had to grin when I saw your comment. I am really happy with this refactor of Coffeescript but Elm is what I do.
cies 9y ago
Elm... And not to forget PureScript... and to a lesser extend ReasonML (by which you can still use React and JSX)... and Haskell/GHCJS. There are quite a lot of ways to seek refuge from both type scarcity and the "semicolon" line noise that was mentioned. Here some benchmarks for several of the FWs that are popular in these languages (Elm has the FW built-in, ReasonML-React is missing but should be close to React.js). https://medium.com/@saurabhnanda/benchmarks-fp-languages-libraries-for-front-end-development-a11af0542f7e https://medium.com/@saurabhnanda/benchmarks-fp-languages-lib...

ddlsmurf 9y ago

I'm not a big fan of the new =>, it means the arguments variable will have parent scope in => but not in ->, it kind of erodes into coffeescript's elegance/consistency imho, unless I'm missing something ?

rmetzler 9y ago
I never used => but when JavaScript introduced the fat arrow and made it different from the fat arrow in CoffeeScript, this introduced a mental barrier for me. By definition, the JavaScript fat arrow is the important one to know.
DiThi 9y ago
You can always add an splat to use instead of arguments: (args...) =>
- ddlsmurf 9y ago
  Sure, but there used to be a strong performance advantage when using the arguments variable with function.apply, also editing arguments' values affected named parameters' values (not sure that's desirable, but you know, semantics)