3 ms·

Agreed completely. My only issue w/coffeescript is that, uh, I like clojurescript better. But clojurescript is all the things coffeescript is, just more---fur

Agreed completely. My only issue w/coffeescript is that, uh, I like clojurescript better. But clojurescript is all the things coffeescript is, just more---further from javascript, more concise, less compatible with standard js tools.

smilekzs 13y ago
coffee-script is not less compatible with standard js tools. Again, "it's just javascript" and you can use backticks in coffee to get embedded js. Common mistake made by coffee-script-nay-sayers.
- invalidOrTaken 13y ago
  Give me a break, you know what I mean. When you look at the page source, do you see embedded coffeescript? Can you debug in coffeescript with the standard tools? I know these things aren't possible and shouldn't be expected b/c coffee is a "compiled" language...but you can do them in javascript, and telling the vanilla js programmer that they're "exactly the same" is being less than honest.
  - smilekzs 13y ago
    For "vanilla js programmer", coffee-to-js-correspondance probably doesn't matter anyway. But the point of coffee is that compiler output is very straightforward. While I have to admit that tooling is far from good enough at present, I personally have no problem reading any js generated by coffee, even without source available to me. Apparently many[citation needed] coffee users can do this. What really made the "vanilla js programmer" feel uncomfortable, I speculate, is the correct way of handling javascript oddities, such as handling nulls (`?` in coffee). They are daunting -- but ignorance is no excuse. Once you start to populate these patterns yourself in your javascript, not only would you immediately recognize them in coffee-generated js, but also you'd appreciate that coffee abstracted them. I think these common points against coffee mostly apply to other compile-to-js languages such as clojure-script, where the generated code almost always made no sense to a "vanilla js programmer".
  - iki23 13y ago
    sure, using source maps in chrome dev tools, I can work directly with coffee source, the same way I work with less source instead of compiled css
  - iki23 13y ago
    chrome/ff dev tools have source maps support, I can work directly with coffee source the same way, as I work with less source instead of compiled css ... only coffeeconsole is in a separate tab via chrome extension
- elwell 13y ago
  He's probably referring to debugging etc.

smilekzs 13y ago

coffee-script is not less compatible with standard js tools. Again, "it's just javascript" and you can use backticks in coffee to get embedded js. Common mistake made by coffee-script-nay-sayers.

invalidOrTaken 13y ago
Give me a break, you know what I mean. When you look at the page source, do you see embedded coffeescript? Can you debug in coffeescript with the standard tools? I know these things aren't possible and shouldn't be expected b/c coffee is a "compiled" language...but you can do them in javascript, and telling the vanilla js programmer that they're "exactly the same" is being less than honest.
- smilekzs 13y ago
  For "vanilla js programmer", coffee-to-js-correspondance probably doesn't matter anyway. But the point of coffee is that compiler output is very straightforward. While I have to admit that tooling is far from good enough at present, I personally have no problem reading any js generated by coffee, even without source available to me. Apparently many[citation needed] coffee users can do this. What really made the "vanilla js programmer" feel uncomfortable, I speculate, is the correct way of handling javascript oddities, such as handling nulls (`?` in coffee). They are daunting -- but ignorance is no excuse. Once you start to populate these patterns yourself in your javascript, not only would you immediately recognize them in coffee-generated js, but also you'd appreciate that coffee abstracted them. I think these common points against coffee mostly apply to other compile-to-js languages such as clojure-script, where the generated code almost always made no sense to a "vanilla js programmer".
- iki23 13y ago
  sure, using source maps in chrome dev tools, I can work directly with coffee source, the same way I work with less source instead of compiled css
- iki23 13y ago
  chrome/ff dev tools have source maps support, I can work directly with coffee source the same way, as I work with less source instead of compiled css ... only coffeeconsole is in a separate tab via chrome extension
elwell 13y ago
He's probably referring to debugging etc.