3 ms·
"If adding a build step is an extra hassle, this might be the wrong profession." That's a very railsy answer. The strength of the web is that you don't need to
by seanalltogether 13y ago
"If adding a build step is an extra hassle, this might be the wrong profession."
That's a very railsy answer. The strength of the web is that you don't need to run a build at all. I think that's the fundamental dislike of Coffeescript. I've worked on so many html frontends where a build process wasn't necessary to accomplish our job, and if someone tried to introduce one for the sake of coffescript it would simply be an annoyance.
- XorNot 13y agoIt's also that you lose any ability to step-debug at the moment. You still need to know Javascript to debug Coffeescript by and large. That mental context-switch overhead is the whole driving philosophy behind NodeJS in the first place - don't switch languages so often. CS/JS is enough of a change that the overhead is not insignificant.
- winslow 13y agoThis is no longer true. You can debug CoffeeScript in web browsers now with source maps. Yes you may need to dig into JS for a more severe bug but most of the stuff is debug-able in source maps.
- lowboy 13y agoEh, I don't find switching back and forth to be that problematic in terms of context switching. That's because CS is very similar to JS in everything but syntax. Which is also why a solid JS background is almost essential when writing CS.
- winslow 13y agoI'm currently using CoffeeScript for a big project on the web and the build step that I have automatically watches my coffee files and recompiles on a new change. Group that with using LiveReload and you have an auto recompile and reloading application with no additional manual build step.