3 ms·
> 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 CoffeeS
by 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 agoGranted 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 agoCome 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 agoThat 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.