4 ms·

Comparing your CoffeeScript example against a vanilla JS React example seems cheap. here's the front page React example in CS: converter = new Showdown.con

Comparing your CoffeeScript example against a vanilla JS React example seems cheap. here's the front page React example in CS: converter = new Showdown.converter() MarkdownEditor = React.createClass getInitialState: () -> value: 'Type some *markdown* here!' handleChange: (e) -> @setState(value: e.target.value) render: () -> d = React.DOM d.div( d.h3(null, 'Input'), d.textarea(onChange: @handleChange, value: @state.value), d.h3(null, 'Output'), d.div(dangerouslySetInnerHTML: __html: converter.makeHtml(@state.value)) ) React.renderComponent MarkdownEditor(), document.querySelector('.container') Showing a LOC comparison (and not even from the same dialect of a language) isn't a good proof for what you're trying to demonstrate. Clarity, simplicity, and debuggability all count. Removing a few extra lines of (non-boilerplate) code compared to React doesn't make the library simpler to work with.

mdiebolt 12y ago
I thought about that when constructing the demo but opted to use the JSX / plain JavaScript version because that's what's displayed on the React homepage. We have a strong preference for Haml and CoffeeScript dialects so that's how we present our demos. I built jsfiddles based on how each framework presented their own product.
- chenglou 12y ago
  It is indeed displayed on the front page, in vanilla JS, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not a very accurate comparison, providing that the point you're trying to prove is LOC. The React version also showcased attributes such as `className`, which Hamlet didn't. Nothing against CoffeeScript; just picking on the comparison itself. Also, React is a view library, not a full-stack framework. The fact that it's put on the same level as other real JS frameworks is an acknowledgment of its paradigm's power and usefulness. So I guess people viewing it as a framework is a misleading but very telling phenomenon. That being said, good luck with the project!

mdiebolt 12y ago

I thought about that when constructing the demo but opted to use the JSX / plain JavaScript version because that's what's displayed on the React homepage. We have a strong preference for Haml and CoffeeScript dialects so that's how we present our demos. I built jsfiddles based on how each framework presented their own product.

chenglou 12y ago
It is indeed displayed on the front page, in vanilla JS, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not a very accurate comparison, providing that the point you're trying to prove is LOC. The React version also showcased attributes such as `className`, which Hamlet didn't. Nothing against CoffeeScript; just picking on the comparison itself. Also, React is a view library, not a full-stack framework. The fact that it's put on the same level as other real JS frameworks is an acknowledgment of its paradigm's power and usefulness. So I guess people viewing it as a framework is a misleading but very telling phenomenon. That being said, good luck with the project!