3 ms·
The flexibility which backbone provides is a big thing for me. Secondly, Choosing "CoffeeScript" is a turnoff me, as it require additional learning curve.
by theone 14y ago
The flexibility which backbone provides is a big thing for me.
Secondly, Choosing "CoffeeScript" is a turnoff me, as it require additional learning curve.
- lucasjans 14y agoTurn off for me, too. Not to mention, I can imagine debugging being more difficult.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoThere's indeed a learning curve, but because 'it's just JavaScript (c)' is CoffeeScript's motto, it doesn't take much. On the other hand, IcedCoffeeScript [1] introduces a fe extremely handy keywords that run afoul of CoffeeScript's motto. And the debugging is just getting better, and with SourceMap, hopefully will be a non-issue in the very near future.[2] In the long term, I think it's better to use CoffeeScript as it is a lot more readable and maintainable. [1]: http://maxtaco.github.com/coffee-script/ http://maxtaco.github.com/coffee-script/ [2]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/DevTools/Features/SourceMap https://wiki.mozilla.org/DevTools/Features/SourceMap
- lucasjans 14y agoSourceMaps look very promising. I see that Chrome has support for them today. I'll take a closer look when support for CoffeeScript is simple. http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/developertools/sourcemaps/ http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/developertools/source...
- lobo_tuerto 14y agoThe curve isn't that big, and once you give it a try you won't go back. I never did. ;)
- ericclemmons 14y agoIt's a turnoff for me as well, but luckily the Spine.js docs easily toggle between CS and JS.