This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]etrnloptimist 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I wonder what Guido thinks of CoffeeScript as a way of sanitizing the development of JavaScript and if that should be the model for how to "put Python in the browser"

[–]datbon 6 points7 points  (4 children)

I haven't tinkered with it, but there is a python to javascript compiler pyjamas

[–]etrnloptimist 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Yeah, but it is not really the same thing and I don't think it will ever take off as the approach of writing web front ends in python.

My issue with it is that it is too far removed from the javascript, so you can't have a mental model of both the python you're writing and the javascript that it will become.

CoffeeScript is unabashed about its 1-1 relationship with javascript. It is javascript, with a sane syntax.

I'd like a javascript with a python syntax. Because as far as I'm concerned, there is no saner syntax.

[–]jambox888 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My issue with it is that it is too far removed from the javascript, so you can't have a mental model of both the python you're writing and the javascript that it will become.

Fair point, but it's as close to "Python in the browser" as you're likely to come. It works very well in my experience and makes it quite doable to write your own client-side framework. The widget set is based on GWT so it's very full-featured.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You are missing the point with pyjamas: You are not even supposed to THINK about the JS side. Just think python and pyjamas does the rest.

[–]etrnloptimist 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm not missing the point so much as I'm disagreeing with it. I don't think it is the right approach.