5 ms·
Yes and no. Although we get some fantastic features, one of the most critical- the ability to neglect parens and curly braces- is lost in es6. I'm working on
by sgslo 12y ago
Yes and no. Although we get some fantastic features, one of the most critical- the ability to neglect parens and curly braces- is lost in es6. I'm working on an es6 project right now and still prefer coffeescript.
- recursive 12y agoFor functions of single arguments, you parameter list parens are optional. But it's not an objective fact that coffeescript's syntax is better. I prefer ES6. And even if you prefer coffeescript, it seems strange to claim that the most critical feature is purely aesthetic.
- briandear 12y agoAssuming it's all ultimately JS, the aesthetic side is a big deal. It results in an easier time understanding and being able to debug the code, which is a huge, perhaps underestimated win.
- stephen_g 12y agoThat's interesting - personally I've always really disliked that about Coffeescript. It may just be because of how familair I am with C-family languages, but I always liked the default Javascript style far better. So from my perspective ES6 is the best of both worlds - the better syntax of Javascript and the features that Coffeescript gave you.
- pekk 12y agoIt sounds like it would be relatively easy to write a preprocessor to do only this
- smrtinsert 12y agoAgreed that it's way nicer.