4 ms·
I fail to understand why would anyone want to use this. It's like a markup language to generate another markup language, except that now you have to deal with:
by laurent123456 14y ago
I fail to understand why would anyone want to use this. It's like a markup language to generate another markup language, except that now you have to deal with:
- bugs in your CoffeeKup code
- bugs in the CoffeeKup framework
- bugs in CoffeeScript
- bugs in the HTML output
- Plus of course having to train the developers that will come after you to maintain all this non-standard code.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoIf you're a rubyist (in heart), you'd absolutely, completely hate HTML and something like this (a clean, beautiful syntax) is like Christmas present. And if write your client-side scripts in CoffeeScript anyway, then there's really no learning curve.
- lazerwalker 14y agoIf you're looking for a templating language with clean, beautiful syntax, the question is why you wouldn't use something like HAML or Jade. They don't have the advantage of already being written in a familiar syntax, but they are easy to pick up, and they're well-supported and generally accepted by the Ruby/Node community rather than being an abandoned year-old code dump.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- hayksaakian 14y agoHonestly I prefer embedded ruby and rails helpers plus JavaScript and HTML where appropriate. To me ruby's terseness makes sense as its an independent language, but something like coffeescript as well as haml and the OP's thing just feel like extra baggage and an arbitrary abstraction.
- jeswin 14y ago1, 2 & 4: You could _probably_ write all of CoffeeKup in a couple of days. The concept isn't complicated enough to have so many bugs. 3: CoffeeScript- After using it as my primary programming language for more than a year, I have come across exactly ZERO compiler bugs. It is pretty popular on GitHub, and there are enough eyes looking at it to be called a safe, mainstream language.