2 ms·
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?
by 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 agoIt 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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.