2 ms·

As I predicted and mentioned in my original comment - That argument does not hold. Its not the same thing. Assembly is hard. There's no way to look at it and sa

by harel 14y ago

As I predicted and mentioned in my original comment - That argument does not hold. Its not the same thing. Assembly is hard. There's no way to look at it and say its a straight forward easy language (without sacrificing 100% of your social life that is). You need to understand the hardware you're writing to. You need to be intimate with it. Be on first name basis with all the registers. JavaScript is a simple language with modern syntax. Its not assembly. Anyone who looks at JavaScript and things "Oh, Assembly" needs a change of careers or a new pair of spectacles. Yes it got quirks, like anything else, but you can learn them and write your own JavaScript.

tlrobinson 14y ago
Just because the syntax is "modern" doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Why should we give up now and be content with whatever we're stuck with?
- harel 14y ago
  It can always be better. But you are investing in something that will write code for you for a browser platform that you should understand fully. Python and Ruby can also be better - perhaps we should write a language that compiles to Python or Ruby so we're not stuck with it? The 'better' solution was to allow more languages to interact with the dom and possibly that will happen in the future (Dart?). But to have an intermediary language that produces code for you which you cannot fully control, to run on a platform (the browser) which you at the moment have not much choice in the matter just to avoid punching a few keys or because you don't like the language, to me, doesn't sit well. To each his own I guess.
- nilkn 14y ago
  If you know JavaScript as well as you know CoffeeScript, you're fine. Use CS and enjoy the syntactic sugar. If not, then there's a potential problem. The problem, in other words, is not about CoffeeScript in particular. It's about people learning CoffeeScript and not learning JavaScript. We are far, far from the point where you can be a great web developer without knowing JavaScript.
  - tlrobinson 14y ago
    I suppose I agree with this. I already knew JavaScript very well. If I find some unexpected behavior in CoffeeScript I'll look at the compiled JavaScript and quickly be able figure out what's going on.

by harel 14y ago

tlrobinson 14y ago

Just because the syntax is "modern" doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Why should we give up now and be content with whatever we're stuck with?

harel 14y ago
It can always be better. But you are investing in something that will write code for you for a browser platform that you should understand fully. Python and Ruby can also be better - perhaps we should write a language that compiles to Python or Ruby so we're not stuck with it? The 'better' solution was to allow more languages to interact with the dom and possibly that will happen in the future (Dart?). But to have an intermediary language that produces code for you which you cannot fully control, to run on a platform (the browser) which you at the moment have not much choice in the matter just to avoid punching a few keys or because you don't like the language, to me, doesn't sit well. To each his own I guess.
nilkn 14y ago
If you know JavaScript as well as you know CoffeeScript, you're fine. Use CS and enjoy the syntactic sugar. If not, then there's a potential problem. The problem, in other words, is not about CoffeeScript in particular. It's about people learning CoffeeScript and not learning JavaScript. We are far, far from the point where you can be a great web developer without knowing JavaScript.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  I suppose I agree with this. I already knew JavaScript very well. If I find some unexpected behavior in CoffeeScript I'll look at the compiled JavaScript and quickly be able figure out what's going on.