5 ms·

Once you "accept" transpilation,you can use any language in the browser and you stop asking yourself these questions. You still need to know javascript though.

by camus2 13y ago

Once you "accept" transpilation,you can use any language in the browser and you stop asking yourself these questions. You still need to know javascript though. Dart,CoffeeScript,Typescript,ClosureScript... IT's not like people dont have the choice today.And sourcemaps work well when debugging,usually.

davorb 13y ago
If we had LISP, we wouldn't really need CSS or HTML either. Everything could be represented with s-expressions and we would all reach nirvana.
- klibertp 13y ago
  Only if every single designer who happens to write some styles has paredit installed. Ditto for every non-technical user who would want to customize some template or something. Sexps are cool, but you really, really need proper tools to edit them efficiently. Without them it's very easy to make a mistake, which of course will make it to runtime, because it won't be a syntax error in most cases. That's the downside of having so little syntax. So I think that (for CSS) we'd either build very simple sexp based DSL using macros or we'd just create a compile-to-sexps human friendly syntax. On the plus side, with Lisps, that would be one evening to implement... :)
  - hajile 13y ago
    If you aren't already using templates, then you're probably doing it wrong. If you have a designer doing serious template work and that designer doesn't know anything, then you're probably doing it wrong. languages like haml and jade are very close to M-expression languages and could work as drop-in replacements for S-expressions just like they are used as <html> replacements at present or s-expr could be used. In addition, in the presence of a lisp language, the code <--> data relationship can be quite convenient.
  - rurban 13y ago
    Remember DSSSL anyone? Obviously worse was better
pekk 13y ago
You can't simultaneously assert that you can use any language in the browser, and that you still need to know Javascript. The latter implies that you are always really using Javascript. Which is also borne out by how you list only languages which are thin veneers over Javascript (Dart a possible exception)

by camus2 13y ago

davorb 13y ago

If we had LISP, we wouldn't really need CSS or HTML either. Everything could be represented with s-expressions and we would all reach nirvana.

klibertp 13y ago
Only if every single designer who happens to write some styles has paredit installed. Ditto for every non-technical user who would want to customize some template or something. Sexps are cool, but you really, really need proper tools to edit them efficiently. Without them it's very easy to make a mistake, which of course will make it to runtime, because it won't be a syntax error in most cases. That's the downside of having so little syntax. So I think that (for CSS) we'd either build very simple sexp based DSL using macros or we'd just create a compile-to-sexps human friendly syntax. On the plus side, with Lisps, that would be one evening to implement... :)
- hajile 13y ago
  If you aren't already using templates, then you're probably doing it wrong. If you have a designer doing serious template work and that designer doesn't know anything, then you're probably doing it wrong. languages like haml and jade are very close to M-expression languages and could work as drop-in replacements for S-expressions just like they are used as <html> replacements at present or s-expr could be used. In addition, in the presence of a lisp language, the code <--> data relationship can be quite convenient.
- rurban 13y ago
  Remember DSSSL anyone? Obviously worse was better

pekk 13y ago

You can't simultaneously assert that you can use any language in the browser, and that you still need to know Javascript. The latter implies that you are always really using Javascript. Which is also borne out by how you list only languages which are thin veneers over Javascript (Dart a possible exception)