3 ms·
Eh, as long as the team is on board, and the sugar is simple enough and maps well to the underlying language without a ton of extra code, then I have no issues
by Klathmon 4y ago
Eh, as long as the team is on board, and the sugar is simple enough and maps well to the underlying language without a ton of extra code, then I have no issues with it.
If it ever becomes a liability, you just check in the "transformed" code and it's gone.
- bigyikes 4y agoYou check in the transformed code and it’s gone, except for the Ghost of Syntactic Sugar which will haunt your codebase forever and make the juniors wonder why all the code is so awful.
- smt88 4y agoJS is flexible enough that you can get 90% of the sugar from CoffeeScript without leaving the language. That said, I always found CoffeeScript to be a worse language (syntactically) than JS.
- vichle 4y ago> If it ever becomes a liability, you just check in the "transformed" code and it's gone. I've done this and regretted it - CS transpires to ES3 and specifically null chaining is completely unreadable. From a backend perspective it's no biggie to instead keep the CS dependency and gradually convert files manually when you have to make changes anyway, or when you have 15 minutes to spare between meetings. You become fluent enough to not even need tests after a while (yikes!).