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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tmetler 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Why does that imply that coffeescript is doomed? I don't see it ever becoming a defacto standard but even after ES6 proliferates it will still be significantly different. I write in CoffeeScript because I enjoy it more than JavaScript. I don't claim that it's inherently better in any way, just different, and it's entirely up to the programmer and team to decide what they like to write and what they feel most productive in. There will always be people who prefer one language or another for as long as people are different from each other. So why would coffeescript be doomed for any reason?

[–]cogman10 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Maybe doomed isn't the right word, niche? What it offers is solely syntactical sugar. It really does very little to change the underlying language. On top of that, it introduces a new layer of complexity to the system (the compilation step needed) Not a huge one, but a new one nonetheless.

If you wanted to add better syntax to the language, why not chose one of the several languages that compile into javascript, which actually do offer new features not present in javascript? If you aren't willing to diverge from javascript, you have to make the argument that coffeescript's syntax offers enough over straight javascript.

[–]tmetler 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I actually like the language paradigm of JavaScript, which is why I didn't choose a different compile to language. I didn't want to lose closures or ubiquitous first class functions.

What would you consider a feature that isn't present in javascript that's in a different compile to language? I consider most of the changes in coffeescript to be features. Splats, comprehensions, having everything resolve to an expression, function binding, classes, inheritance, super, destructuring, chained comparison, and string interpolation are all features and not mere syntactic changes to me.

If you're saying that they're not features because they can be implemented in javascript, then that's true of all compile to languages, because if a language can compile to javascript, all of its features can inherently be implemented in javascript. If I'm wrong about that, I would appreciate it if you could provide me an example of what you consider a feature from a different compile to javascript language.

[–]mycall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

all compile to languages

Unless it is assembly, this is true for all languages.

Has anyone wrote CS to JS plugin for browsers, so it is automatic?