3 ms·

I think that python is sufficiently different from javascript that you'll need to provide your own documentation beyond explaining the transformation. Coffeesc

by jiaaro 16y ago

I think that python is sufficiently different from javascript that you'll need to provide your own documentation beyond explaining the transformation. Coffeescript is mostly just javascript shorthand; Python on the otherhand has language features with no javascript equivalent (I'm thinking keyword arguments, generator functions, classes, and especially super() here) That being said, I think to make this project really work you're going to be responsible for documenting the dom, and providing support for libraries like jQuery.

s3graham 16y ago
At first blush, I'd say this similar to Coffeescript in that it's meant to be javascript shorthand also.
- endian 16y ago
  Exactly. It's purely syntax to syntax. Thanks for the confusion -- I've made the first paragraphs more clear about PJ's scope. Title changed: s/compiler/syntax cross-compiler/ EDIT: title changed again
  - s3graham 16y ago
    I guess defining what you consider syntax features vs. Python language/runtime would be appropriate for the docs. ie. 2 * * 1024? print object.__mro__? slice objects? __call__? etc.
    - endian 16y ago
      Here's the decision procedure: If there's no collateral damage and the JS is clear (e.g. 28 --> Math.pow(2, 8)): do it. If there's no proper way to express the JS in Python (e.g. instanceof and typeof keywords): do it If it's really important (only "print" and "self"): do it Else: DON'T These few special cases that mess with your code are all mentioned in a section on the the main page. And you can easily remove them from the transformations if you want.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    That's not a term I've ever heard, and "cross compiler" tends to imply something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_compiler I would call what you have done a source-to-source compiler: it translates from one target high-level language to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler

by jiaaro 16y ago

s3graham 16y ago

At first blush, I'd say this similar to Coffeescript in that it's meant to be javascript shorthand also.

endian 16y ago
Exactly. It's purely syntax to syntax. Thanks for the confusion -- I've made the first paragraphs more clear about PJ's scope. Title changed: s/compiler/syntax cross-compiler/ EDIT: title changed again
- s3graham 16y ago
  I guess defining what you consider syntax features vs. Python language/runtime would be appropriate for the docs. ie. 2 * * 1024? print object.__mro__? slice objects? __call__? etc.
  - endian 16y ago
    Here's the decision procedure: If there's no collateral damage and the JS is clear (e.g. 28 --> Math.pow(2, 8)): do it. If there's no proper way to express the JS in Python (e.g. instanceof and typeof keywords): do it If it's really important (only "print" and "self"): do it Else: DON'T These few special cases that mess with your code are all mentioned in a section on the the main page. And you can easily remove them from the transformations if you want.
- scott_s 16y ago
  That's not a term I've ever heard, and "cross compiler" tends to imply something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_compiler I would call what you have done a source-to-source compiler: it translates from one target high-level language to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler