3 ms·

> Coffeescript has never presented itself otherwise. My point was not to disparage the author, his intentions, his lucidity, nor even the resulting language. W

by fab13n 15y ago

> Coffeescript has never presented itself otherwise. My point was not to disparage the author, his intentions, his lucidity, nor even the resulting language. When people receive something packaged as a compiler (a file->file traduction tool to invoke from the command line and to include in building scripts), they naturally understand it as a compiler, and judge its qualities as a compiler. And by "compiler", I mean the informal concept that people spontaneously put behind gcc or javac, not any attempt to formally classify a kind of data conversion tool. Among associated expectations, there's this idea that the abstraction provided by the compiler doesn't leak: you generally don't need to know about ASM/bytecode while using GCC/javac. CS doesn't shield you from the generated JS, and as such, it falls short of most people's expectations about a compiler. Looking at these expectations from a different perspective, as does Raganwald, is very interesting.

gerggerg 15y ago
When talking about compiling computer languages. It would help if we were all using the standard definition of a compiler. I'm glad you've got your own definition but using it only serves to confuse the discussion. Furthermore, your argument is weak. The only reason you don't need to be more familiar with the technologies supporting gcc and javac is because they are robust and much older. If you were there at the beginning of their development you most certainly would have needed to be more familiar with their underlying platforms. In fact many would argue you'd be a better programmer if you did now. Another reason your argument could be weak: Does a line number mapper between coffeescript and its generated javascript completely nullify your argument? At that point I wouldn't need to ever look at the generated source and would care only about it's execution. That sounds pretty much exactly like a "compiled" language to me.

by fab13n 15y ago

gerggerg 15y ago

When talking about compiling computer languages. It would help if we were all using the standard definition of a compiler. I'm glad you've got your own definition but using it only serves to confuse the discussion. Furthermore, your argument is weak. The only reason you don't need to be more familiar with the technologies supporting gcc and javac is because they are robust and much older. If you were there at the beginning of their development you most certainly would have needed to be more familiar with their underlying platforms. In fact many would argue you'd be a better programmer if you did now. Another reason your argument could be weak: Does a line number mapper between coffeescript and its generated javascript completely nullify your argument? At that point I wouldn't need to ever look at the generated source and would care only about it's execution. That sounds pretty much exactly like a "compiled" language to me.