3 ms·

I think Coffeescript is not as much a 1-to-1 mapping to javascript as HAML is to HTML. It has a bunch of features that don't exist in Javascript and that I, per

by lhorie 13y ago

I think Coffeescript is not as much a 1-to-1 mapping to javascript as HAML is to HTML. It has a bunch of features that don't exist in Javascript and that I, personally, am only familiar with because of previous Python experience. There's also a productivity thing: familiarity is a really big deal in UX design, and dev environments are no different - you might already have your build system all setup, and be accustomed to read non-HTML/CSS syntax, but others may not be up to the same speed and the requirement for a non-standard tool may bog them down more than help. Time and again I've seen people say their setup is great, but then try to get someone else setup too, and it's a never ending series of downloading this and installing that and some typing some undocumented command line thing and oh you need a VPN connection to see the database in order to auto-gen that other thing, and to start the web server you type this, and oh crap how do I edit hosts files in Macs again, etc etc

exogen 13y ago
> I think Coffeescript is not as much a 1-to-1 mapping to javascript as HAML is to HTML In my opinion, the opposite is true – HAML adds a lot more than CoffeeScript. As a very experienced front-end developer, this example from the HAML documentation is completely inscrutable to me: %div[@user, :greeting] %bar[290]/ Hello!
- Spiritus 13y ago
  Granted I have never used HAML nor Rails, but I have absolutely no idea what that would produce besides some kind of <div> with the text "Hello!" somewhere nested(?) inside.
- lhorie 13y ago
  Come on, you're cherrypicking an obscure, rarely used feature to make a point. When I say mapping, I'm referring to syntax that pertains to HTML, not Ruby data binding syntax (which itself is not too terrible, if you stay within idiomatic subsets). In any case, your argument kinda reinforces my point about familiarity...
  - exogen 13y ago
    That may be true, I'm not sure which features of HAML are considered obscure? But that in itself reinforces my point: you're saying there are obscure parts of HAML that don't pertain to HTML, apparently. That's the argument I was trying to make.

by lhorie 13y ago

exogen 13y ago

> I think Coffeescript is not as much a 1-to-1 mapping to javascript as HAML is to HTML In my opinion, the opposite is true – HAML adds a lot more than CoffeeScript. As a very experienced front-end developer, this example from the HAML documentation is completely inscrutable to me: %div[@user, :greeting] %bar[290]/ Hello!

Spiritus 13y ago
Granted I have never used HAML nor Rails, but I have absolutely no idea what that would produce besides some kind of <div> with the text "Hello!" somewhere nested(?) inside.
lhorie 13y ago
Come on, you're cherrypicking an obscure, rarely used feature to make a point. When I say mapping, I'm referring to syntax that pertains to HTML, not Ruby data binding syntax (which itself is not too terrible, if you stay within idiomatic subsets). In any case, your argument kinda reinforces my point about familiarity...
- exogen 13y ago
  That may be true, I'm not sure which features of HAML are considered obscure? But that in itself reinforces my point: you're saying there are obscure parts of HAML that don't pertain to HTML, apparently. That's the argument I was trying to make.