3 ms·

A very well written article. I've considered learning CoffeeScript but have decided for now to let things play out and focus on learning JavaScript better. The

by jtchang 15y ago

A very well written article. I've considered learning CoffeeScript but have decided for now to let things play out and focus on learning JavaScript better. There are a ton of frameworks for javascript (backbone/spine) that make it more bearable. Also JS for all its quirks is ridiculously powerful. To me maintainability is huge in a project. There needs to be a really strong reason to choose CoffeeScript over plain javascript. Catching all syntax errors seems okay but not entirely justified. I usually catch those in a staging environment on a console.

div 15y ago
I am now on my third project using coffeescript together with BackboneJS. On the second and third project, I am also teaching coffeescript to 3 people who had never written any coffeescript OR BackboneJS before. Granted, there is a fair amount of coaching involved, but the quality of the code produced is top notch, and the maintainability is _vastly_ improved compared to anything we've done in plain javascript before. This may be due to Coffeescript, and it may be due to Backbone adding some much needed structure, but I'd like to believe it's a combination of both and even using one in isolation should yield an improvement. If you are familiar with Javascript, picking up Coffeescript should be a breeze, and in my opinion, the benefits are there. On a closing note, you say that JS is ridiculously powerful which leads me to believe that you feel using CS means sacrificing some of that power. Since CS translates directly into JS, I think you'll find this fear is unwarranted.
- recursive 15y ago
  > On a closing note, you say that JS is ridiculously powerful which leads me to believe that you feel using CS means sacrificing some of that power. Since CS translates directly into JS, I think you'll find this fear is unwarranted. That alone is really not any evidence that CoffeeScript is as powerful as Javascript. Just because the target language exposes a particular feature does not mean that source language does.
  - div 15y ago
    That's so obviously correct that I'm going to stop making HN comments so early in the morning and see if that stops me from saying stupid shit.
jc123 15y ago
I appreciate the article but disagree about it being well written. It doesn't take enough of a stance and when it tries to, it is still swinging around many directions. On the whole, though, I don’t think CoffeeScript adds quite enough benefit to outweigh the costs It's not clear what are those costs? The --watch mode bug? Or the generated JS which is perhaps less a complaint about CoffeeScript, and more a warning about versioning and standardising all components of a project.? Or the author's trouble with indentation rules? I've had to read this article too many times to figure out, but it sounds like the author is looking for a framework like backbone. Author used the wrong "tool" for his main problem. A language doesn't really help avoid spaghetti code, as author concedes: It is still possible that I may find a return to plain Javascript sufficiently painful that I’ll stick with Coffee.

by jtchang 15y ago

div 15y ago

I am now on my third project using coffeescript together with BackboneJS. On the second and third project, I am also teaching coffeescript to 3 people who had never written any coffeescript OR BackboneJS before. Granted, there is a fair amount of coaching involved, but the quality of the code produced is top notch, and the maintainability is _vastly_ improved compared to anything we've done in plain javascript before. This may be due to Coffeescript, and it may be due to Backbone adding some much needed structure, but I'd like to believe it's a combination of both and even using one in isolation should yield an improvement. If you are familiar with Javascript, picking up Coffeescript should be a breeze, and in my opinion, the benefits are there. On a closing note, you say that JS is ridiculously powerful which leads me to believe that you feel using CS means sacrificing some of that power. Since CS translates directly into JS, I think you'll find this fear is unwarranted.

recursive 15y ago
> On a closing note, you say that JS is ridiculously powerful which leads me to believe that you feel using CS means sacrificing some of that power. Since CS translates directly into JS, I think you'll find this fear is unwarranted. That alone is really not any evidence that CoffeeScript is as powerful as Javascript. Just because the target language exposes a particular feature does not mean that source language does.
- div 15y ago
  That's so obviously correct that I'm going to stop making HN comments so early in the morning and see if that stops me from saying stupid shit.

jc123 15y ago

I appreciate the article but disagree about it being well written. It doesn't take enough of a stance and when it tries to, it is still swinging around many directions. On the whole, though, I don’t think CoffeeScript adds quite enough benefit to outweigh the costs It's not clear what are those costs? The --watch mode bug? Or the generated JS which is perhaps less a complaint about CoffeeScript, and more a warning about versioning and standardising all components of a project.? Or the author's trouble with indentation rules? I've had to read this article too many times to figure out, but it sounds like the author is looking for a framework like backbone. Author used the wrong "tool" for his main problem. A language doesn't really help avoid spaghetti code, as author concedes: It is still possible that I may find a return to plain Javascript sufficiently painful that I’ll stick with Coffee.