3 ms·
Fully agreed. The syntactic sugar saves lots of time in total, and there are few bonuses like for own key, value in hash that also checks `hash.hasOwnProp
by pestaa 15y ago
Fully agreed. The syntactic sugar saves lots of time in total, and there are few bonuses like
for own key, value in hash
that also checks `hash.hasOwnProperty(key)`, which is good practice in JavaScript, but really boring to type in almost all `for` statements.
I also observed that using longer, more descriptive variable and function names, the difference between Coffee and compiled JS is definitely not an issue in debugging sessions. I'd say there is not a context switch even.
It feels like thinking in JavaScript and writing in a new dialect.
- masklinn 15y ago> but really boring to type in almost all `for` statements. Use _.each, you're done. Pleasure.
- ricardobeat 15y agoBut performance
- cheald 15y agoExcept that if you're, say, performing nested iteration, you end up creating a whole crapload of closures, ballooning up memory usage and punishing the GC. A quick test show that coffeescript's iterator is about three times faster. http://pastie.org/3783184 http://pastie.org/3783184 Underscore's nice, but I really like Coffeescript's iterator sugar.