3 ms·
1. CoffeeScript produces very readable JS. Not the same as handwritten, but close enough. 2. This is a framework. You are less likely to be debugging into it,
by jeswin 15y ago
1. CoffeeScript produces very readable JS. Not the same as handwritten, but close enough.
2. This is a framework. You are less likely to be debugging into it, unlike your own client-side libs written in CoffeeScript (which you mention doesn't bother you).
I don't agree with avoiding a library because it is written in CS.
- ryanfitz 15y agoWhen I am trying out/learning a new library or framework, I do a lot of tinkering, looking around and reading the source code. Coffeescript output is definitely readable, but you need to take a tiny bit of time to translate the coffeescript output, to the actual source so you can read it, checkout the comments etc to understand how you are supposed to do something. This added bit of time adds up quickly for me. For example when I was first learning backbone, which is only around 1000 lines and very well documented. I was constantly reading the source code to understand why something wasn't working for me or how to implement something. Projects typically aren't nearly as well documented as backbone, making understanding the sourcecode even more essential.
- Scriptor 15y agoIf you're just reading the source of the framework, why not just read the Coffeescript source instead of reading the generated Javascript code?
- johncoltrane 15y agoBecause Coffescript doesn't work in the browser, JavaScript does.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]