3 ms·
Your last paragraph confuses me. So you had jQuery experience and were inhibited by working on a MooTools project. I get that, makes total sense. But then you
by encoderer 14y ago
Your last paragraph confuses me.
So you had jQuery experience and were inhibited by working on a MooTools project. I get that, makes total sense.
But then you say that switching to CoffeeScript may seem like a better long term choice but "in reality it is not so much."
Surely MooTools would've been fine for you as a long term choice.
Yes, there is a penalty to switching. Whether it's jQuery to MooTools, JS to CS, whatever. But that doesn't make it a bad long term choice.
Also, CoffeeScript is more than just saving keystrokes. That makes it seem like it's all about initial up-front cost savings. Instead, it's about having shorter, more expressive code. That pays dividends for the life of a project.
- jaequery 14y ago"Instead, it's about having shorter, more expressive code." yes, but at the expense of a lot of other negative baggages that comes along with it. by having it's own compiler rather than leaving that to the browser seems like it's opening a can of worms. and just reading from the comments, i can see how we could soon see a birth of "another language", that's supposed to be solve all problems coffeescript'ers face. for one, i guess readability seems to be the common problem, which isn't good for productivity.
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoi can see how we could soon see a birth of "another language", that's supposed to be solve all problems coffeescript'ers face That's called incremental progress a d most people see it as a good thing. Others yell, "Get off my lawn!"
- encoderer 14y agoIt sounds like you haven't ever used CoffeeScript? Don't you find it a little odd that you have such strong opinions on something you've never even tried?