3 ms·
It's near unreadable. It's optimizing the wrong things, prettiness (I don't think it's very pretty at all) and keystroke counts, vs readability, fewer errors an
by leokun 13y ago
It's near unreadable. It's optimizing the wrong things, prettiness (I don't think it's very pretty at all) and keystroke counts, vs readability, fewer errors and maintainability.
It also bugs the fuck out of me that CoffeeScript projects frequently end up being given a *.js extension in the name and how often people who want nothing in the world to do with CoffeeScript, people like me, end up having to deal with it for some reason. Like I don't like ada, and I never have to look at it. ada never ends up in my editor or on a github page I'm looking at, but frequently someone puts CoffeeScript somewhere where someone was expecting JavaScript, like a StackOverflow answer, or a package for Meteor, or something. If CoffeeScript stayed out of my life, and I out of it, I would probably hate it a lot less.
It's not that it's transpiled. I mean that isn't a great thing, but for example I like the idea of Dart and even TypeScript. But CoffeeScript? No thanks.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jashkenas 13y ago> [...] how often people who want nothing in the world to do with CoffeeScript, > people like me, end up having to deal with it for some reason. Like I > don't like ada, and I never have to look at it. ada never ends up in > my editor or on a github page I'm looking at, but frequently someone > puts CoffeeScript somewhere where someone was expecting JavaScript, > like a StackOverflow answer, or a package for Meteor, or something. > If CoffeeScript stayed out of my life, and I out of it, I would probably > hate it a lot less. As the creator of CoffeeScript — I think your answer here is right on the money. It's a pretty perfect answer to joeblau's question.
- camus 13y agoFirst thanks, Coffeescript saved me days of work. But I can understand , because it's popular , some people feel like they are forced to understand or learn it. Yet you can be proud that Coffeescript influenced the latest ES spec, that's all that matters , you pushed Javascript forward, by saying "Dont wait for other to make the stuff you need, do your own stuff and eventually people will wake up and adress your intial issue".
- portmanteaufu 13y agoHear hear! I'll never forget reading a blog post [0] by Brendan Eich in which he addressed upcoming ES features that were influenced by or emulated Coffeescript syntax. It was a pretty solid Krusty the Clown reference on his part. [0] https://brendaneich.com/2010/11/paren-free/ https://brendaneich.com/2010/11/paren-free/
- lowboy 13y ago>It also bugs the fuck out of me that CoffeeScript projects frequently end up being given a *.js extension If a project compiles down to Javascript and is intended to be used as such, a .js name suits it regardless of the source language.
- regularfry 13y agoFor the project, possibly. Not for an individual source file. That's bananas.
- leokun 13y agoWell since you can compile python, clojure, etc etc to JavaScript I guess the .js extension is meaningless. In my opinion it isn't at all OK, because a .js extension means that the code is in JavaScript, so that I can look at it, and maybe contribute. I'm not interested in CoffeeScript widgetmajigs that turn CoffeeScript into JavaScript. Use .coffee or maybe CoffeeScript just can't stand on its own. Maybe it's just riding JS's coattails and the moment it separates it becomes abandoned.
- tlrobinson 13y agoAfter using CoffeeScript for a few months I find JavaScript harder to read. Of course something foreign to you is going to be harder to read.
- Locke1689 13y agoAs a side note, I dislike the use of the term "transpiled." A compiler is a program which translates between two programming languages. CoffeeScript -> JavaScript is just compilation. There is no need for a new word.