3 ms·
In this case it would have sounded way cool. But I would append js to any library developed in CoffeeScript simply because it's the target of compilation, and u
by goldfeld 14y ago
In this case it would have sounded way cool. But I would append js to any library developed in CoffeeScript simply because it's the target of compilation, and usable by any and all JavaScript developers. This isn't a library, but if it were it would have to consider that it would see far more people using it in their JS applications than in CoffeeScript ones, because it doesn't really matter. And calling it "js" doesn't alienate CoffeeScript devs, since they're fully aware of the interop, while calling it .coffee might keep away many js devs who don't know what CoffeeScript is about or who don't really know the JS ecosystem too well (which is all too common in JavaScript, being the necessity it is.)