3 ms·
Have you considered using plain coffee-script with node-fibers instead? It might also be worth looking into Common Node (https://github.com/olegp/common-node h
by olegp 14y ago
Have you considered using plain coffee-script with node-fibers instead?
It might also be worth looking into Common Node (https://github.com/olegp/common-node https://github.com/olegp/common-node) that I'm working on which provides a higher level abstraction: https://gist.github.com/1447709 https://gist.github.com/1447709
- pooriaazimi 14y agoThanks. I'll look into it. One thing I forgot to mention about async.js: It's downright disgusting when you try to use it with CoffeeScript, so even though it's a mature, well-architectured piece of framework, I don't like to use it with CoffeeScript...
- dagw 14y agoAs someone who was just about to add some async.js to a CoffeeScript/Node project, I'd be very interested to hear about what problems you've had before I go and potentially do something stupid.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoIt might be just me, but async.waterfall [ (callback) -> callback null, "one", "two" (arg1, arg2, callback) -> callback null, "three" (arg1, callback) -> callback null, "done" ] just doesn't make much sense to me. I just don't like the way it looks. (code snippet from https://groups.google.com/group/coffeescript/browse_thread/thread/dd2071f3b0d73861?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1 https://groups.google.com/group/coffeescript/browse_thread/t... )
- lucian1900 14y agoLooks fine to me, but I do agree Iced can look even better.