3 ms·

I'm going to just always flag CoffeeScript libraries that get posted with a .js extention. It is too much effort to put into looking at something only to find o

I'm going to just always flag CoffeeScript libraries that get posted with a .js extention. It is too much effort to put into looking at something only to find out it's not what you thought it was. I don't look at Clojure or Rails posts because I am not interested in them, but somehow I just can't avoid CoffeeScript. So I'm flagging.

jclevy 14y ago
I understand. I'm sorry for that.
jashkenas 14y ago
Gee, that's a bit intolerant, isn't it? Do you similarly flag all Clojure and Rails posts on HN, because you're just not interested?
- btipling 14y ago
  No, because they don't pretend to be something I'm interested in.
  - jclevy 14y ago
    But would my project Chocolate interest you if its source code was written directly in javascript?
    - btipling 14y ago
      Your project is interesting, and you put a great deal of work into it and it is pretty much amazing. I generally don't care about what language an app I use was written in. What has gotten under my skin is the naming of things that are not JavaScript yet still get a .js extension. I'm actually sorry that all of your hard work is buried under a discussion about the .js extension. I just felt the need to vent as it keeps happening. Your demo is very impressive.
      - niggler 14y ago
        I wonder if the .js extension should be dropped from names. 'Chocolate' would probably be a better name than 'chocolatejs'
        MatthewPhillips 14y ago
        It's the standard naming for JavaScript libraries, just like C libraries tend to be named libfoo
      - jclevy 14y ago
        Thank you. Chocolate is the project name, but I had to add something at the end to create a web site and a visible github project. So js was the shortest and closest meaningfull suffix that came to my mind.
        btipling 14y ago
        For what it's worth there's already Chocolat.app which is a text editor for Macs. :/
calgaryeng 14y ago
You have first world problems my friend.
irickt 14y ago
Really? It's not about the language. It's about the runtime.

jclevy 14y ago

I understand. I'm sorry for that.

jashkenas 14y ago

Gee, that's a bit intolerant, isn't it? Do you similarly flag all Clojure and Rails posts on HN, because you're just not interested?

btipling 14y ago
No, because they don't pretend to be something I'm interested in.
- jclevy 14y ago
  But would my project Chocolate interest you if its source code was written directly in javascript?
  - btipling 14y ago
    Your project is interesting, and you put a great deal of work into it and it is pretty much amazing. I generally don't care about what language an app I use was written in. What has gotten under my skin is the naming of things that are not JavaScript yet still get a .js extension. I'm actually sorry that all of your hard work is buried under a discussion about the .js extension. I just felt the need to vent as it keeps happening. Your demo is very impressive.
    - niggler 14y ago
      I wonder if the .js extension should be dropped from names. 'Chocolate' would probably be a better name than 'chocolatejs'
      - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
        It's the standard naming for JavaScript libraries, just like C libraries tend to be named libfoo
    - jclevy 14y ago
      Thank you. Chocolate is the project name, but I had to add something at the end to create a web site and a visible github project. So js was the shortest and closest meaningfull suffix that came to my mind.
      - btipling 14y ago
        For what it's worth there's already Chocolat.app which is a text editor for Macs. :/

calgaryeng 14y ago

You have first world problems my friend.

irickt 14y ago

Really? It's not about the language. It's about the runtime.