3 ms·

that's a really interesting comment. where exactly is the line drawn between "just syntactic sugar" and "a different language"? Here we have two ways of expres

that's a really interesting comment. where exactly is the line drawn between "just syntactic sugar" and "a different language"? Here we have two ways of expressing code, coffeescript and dart. Both are syntactically quite different from js, both offer features not found in js, both encourage you to write code differently to how you would in js and both compile to plain js.

geon 15y ago
> where exactly is the line Not that I have an aswer to that, but I have the impression Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js. A lot of the distinction seems to depend on the local culture of the language. I've seen a lot of lispers talking about their new "language", where they add some minor feature to scheme.
- cubicle67 15y ago
  ...Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js possibly initially, but there's a lot of constructs in coffeescript that aren't in js eg existential operator solipsism = true if mind? and not world? compiles to var solipsism; if ((typeof mind !== "undefined" && mind !== null) && !(typeof world !== "undefined" && world !== null)) { solipsism = true; } see also splats http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#splats http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#splats, function binding and comprehensions over collections eg eat food for food in ['toast', 'cheese', 'wine']
geon 15y ago
> where exactly is the line Not that I have an aswer to that, but I have the impression Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js. A lot of the distinction seems to depend on the local culture of the language. I've seen a lot of lispers talking about their new "language", where they add some minor feature to scheme.
geon 15y ago
> where exactly is the line Not that I have an aswer to that, but I have the impression Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js. A lot of the distinction seems to depend on the local culture of the language. I've seen a lot of lispers talking about their new "language", where they add some minor feature to scheme.
geon 15y ago
> where exactly is the line Not that I have an aswer to that, but I have the impression Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js. A lot of the distinction seems to depend on the local culture of the language. I've seen a lot of lispers talking about their new "language", where they add some minor feature to scheme.
geon 15y ago
> where exactly is the line Not that I have an aswer to that, but I have the impression Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js. A lot of the distinction seems to depend on the local culture of the language. I've seen a lot of lispers talking about their new "language", where they add some minor feature to scheme.

geon 15y ago

> where exactly is the line Not that I have an aswer to that, but I have the impression Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js. A lot of the distinction seems to depend on the local culture of the language. I've seen a lot of lispers talking about their new "language", where they add some minor feature to scheme.

cubicle67 15y ago
...Coffeescript was designed specifically to compile 1:1 to matching js possibly initially, but there's a lot of constructs in coffeescript that aren't in js eg existential operator solipsism = true if mind? and not world? compiles to var solipsism; if ((typeof mind !== "undefined" && mind !== null) && !(typeof world !== "undefined" && world !== null)) { solipsism = true; } see also splats http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#splats http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#splats, function binding and comprehensions over collections eg eat food for food in ['toast', 'cheese', 'wine']

geon 15y ago