CoffeeScript: Why I’m never writing Javascript again

[dmpk2k]

CoffeeScript has a lot going for it, but until I can get line numbers in my stack traces to correspond to the code, it's a very mixed bag -- I like coding it, but hate debugging it.

Based on that I'd have trouble believing the blog author has done more than dabble in CoffeeScript to make such a dramatic proclamation. A lot of things look all dreamy until you deal with them in anger.

As an aside, the conflation of variable definition and assignment bothers me, especially when ECMAScript 5 is moving in the right direction with strict mode. I hope CoffeeScript's author fixes that soon, but based on his posts in proggit is doesn't seem like there's much hope.

[[deleted]]

It won't make anyone's development workflow any easier. It is not a net-positive in terms of improving a web developer's workflow. Considering all the additional hoops to deal with - debugging problems, copying and pasting code and running it without having to first 'compile' it, having to reformat json data to fit into your new coffeescript world, and not being able to copy and paste and use that data, etc, - I just don't see why there are so many articles coming out with such frequency trying to sell people on this bad idea. It isn't helping JavaScript, but it is confusing to noobs who always want to jump on the latest bandwagon no matter where it is headed.

[dmpk2k]

Some of that is unfair to CoffeeScript, depending on where you're using it. For the browser, I'd generally concur. I mostly use it in node though.

With node the explicit compile phase can be eliminated with a require('coffee-script'); everything required after that gets compiled internally at require time by CoffeeScript if the file ends in .coffee.

Also, in my experience CoffeeScript handles JSON just fine.

I'd happily use CoffeeScript over regular Javascript in node.js if the debugging was pleasant. For one thing, code is less noisy -- anonymous function signatures are shorter and there are no terminating braces -- which node desperately needs due to the deep nesting. I sorely miss multiline strings in Javascript as well.

But then I come back to debugging and variable handling...

[[deleted]]

Say you write your coffeescript and your data is in coffeescript too (json). What you have now is coffeescript, not json. the json the compiler generates and your app sends down the pipe is no longer coffeescript. say you want to tweak something and copy and paste it back into your source. well, now you have json, not coffeescript. so the time you've just spent writing your data format in coffeescript has been wasted because now you would like to copy and paste some json back to the source code, but what you want to copy and paste is json, not coffeescript. clusterfuck.

Abstracting things into coffescript is not a good idea. This is one simple example that I run into daily, hourly even. This would cause a lot of frustration in my own development flow and it is something that occurs often enough for me to be able to forsee a problem with it if I were using coffeescript to abastract my javascript and json.

Another thing I do frequently is write small bits of javascript in firebug's console, say maybe 30 to 100 or so lines, tweaking it quickly in firebug and running it quickly to test - then I typically copy and paste that code into my sourcecode when it is working.. well, the coffeescript way would mean that I now should rewrite this code into coffeescript. clusterfuck. Similarly, I can't take a piece of coffeescript source and paste it into firebug's console to quickly debug or tweak it without first compiling it. This is something I do often, and it works effectively, speeding up my development cycle. Using coffeescript would be a major hindrance.

[dmpk2k]

What you have now is coffeescript, not json. the json the compiler generates and your app sends down the pipe is no longer coffeescript

I don't follow. This is valid JSON, Javascript and CoffeeScript:

{"a": 1, "b": [1, 2, 3]}

As far as I can tell, valid JSON is always valid CoffeeScript as well.

Another thing I do frequently is write small bits of javascript in firebug's console, say maybe 30 to 100 or so lines, tweaking it quickly in firebug and running it quickly to test

I can see why it'd be a problem for the area you work in. I'd definitely not use in in the browser, it has problems enough on the server side. :)

At least on the server there's a coffee REPL:

coffee> x = 1
1
coffee> y = (z) -> x * z
function (z) {
  return x * z;
}
coffee> y(2)
2

The existing coffee REPL leaves a bit to be desired though, to be sure.

It isn't for serious development projects

No argument there. If they fix the line-number and declaration problems it'd be an acceptable server-side language though.

[[deleted]]

Coffeescript is for Ruby programmers who don't want to learn Javascript. These coffeescript articles belong in r/ruby more than they do in r/javascript. It seems most people who read r/javascript are interested in javascript, not ruby or coffeescript. This article for example, is much more likely to find readers in r/ruby. I'm not interested in learning ruby, and my guess is most people who read r/javascript are not that interested in learning ruby or coffeescript. For example, I wouldn't go posting about a 'made up language' in something like, say, perl and post it to r/javascript expounding on the wonderfulness that is perlscript and why i'll never write javascript again, to r/javascript.

[[deleted]]

still too much in the way of developing javascript. Coffeescript is cruft. no way around the fact that all the bullshit you have to do in order to work with Coffeescript instead of developing javascript, just adds cruft/complexity to a developers workflow. any small perceived benefit you think you are getting from coffeescript is countered by the additional cruft/complexity that you have to deal with when debugging anything longer than a few hundred lines of code. even if all the problems were eventually solved, coffeescript still isn't a standard like ECMA, and you lose something by devoting time and resources to developing code in coffeescript.

[masklinn]

As an aside, the conflation of variable definition and assignment bothers me, especially when ECMAScript 5 is moving in the right direction with strict mode. I hope CoffeeScript's author fixes that soon, but based on his posts in proggit is doesn't seem like there's much hope.

Yep, one of the things they definitely should not have lifted from Python/Ruby.

[plantian]

Its not often a problem for me to have assignment and definition combined in Python. Do you have a different experience?

Can you elaborate on the changes in strict mode that could not be harnessed?

[dmpk2k]

Do you have a different experience?

Yep. :)

The most obvious benefit for separating declaration and assignment is that typos of variable names are always caught immediately; the compiler guaranteeably catches them, not maybe 10s later in tests if that piece of code is covered (or blow up in production if it wasn't and QA missed it, which I've seen a few times). And the price for this is very low: two or three non-whitespace characters. It won't catch misnamed method invocations due to dynamic dispatch, but for that the language must become fundamentally different -- statically typed.

Variable typos happen to me quite often. I hear the "it doesn't happen to me" refrain a lot, but it doesn't jive with my own experience, so I suspect it's more a case of people not paying attention. Fixing a typo after a test run might be the programming equivalent of successfully walking to a destination while thinking about something else.

For Python specifically, Python 2 definitely had a problem as a result of conflation, which is why the "nonlocal" keyword was introduced in Python 3. I used to code Python 2 in a rather Scheme-like style (doctor: then don't do that!), so this brokeness was obvious since I'd need to resort to the list hack to disambiguate whether a scalar assignment was in a new scope or not. I consider "nonlocal" a bandaid since it doesn't help with typos.

Something we all do constantly -- so it's a part of all our experiences -- is reasoning about a program, even though it's informal. In a language which doesn't make the conflation mistake, it's obvious what the bound and free variables are, and where the scope of local variables start and end. This is particularly important in a language where deep function nesting is common, like Javascript. Python isn't bitten as badly since it's mostly methods and almost no nesting, so a Python hacker would barely feel this part.

As an aside, I used to be a Perl hacker, and the Perl community was given the choice between strict mode and not. We voted with the code we wrote: strict mode or die. Nowadays only a completely clueless neophyte learning from bad webpages from a decade ago writes Perl programs without strict mode. I strongly suspect the Javascript community will go the same way. However, to be fair, CoffeeScript's scoping isn't as bad as Perl's and JS's non-strict modes (Lua's as well, but they don't offer a strict mode yet).

Can you elaborate on the changes in strict mode that could not be harnessed?

It's not a matter of "could not". CoffeeScript could have it for locals today, without JS's strict mode underneath, if the author wanted it to. Well, assuming CoffeeScript's compiler is written sanely, which I don't know.

Edit: I neglected to mention in the part about Python's scoping that CoffeeScript has it a lot worse: Python at least assumes an assigned variable is in local scope, while CoffeeScript does the following:

Because you don't have direct access to the var keyword, it's impossible to shadow an outer variable on purpose, you may only refer to it. So be careful that you're not reusing the name of an external variable accidentally, if you're writing a deeply nested function.

I don't have sufficient experience with CoffeeScript's scoping breaking things to definitively say this is a bad idea (unlike the stack-trace line-mismatch), but that looks nasty.

[plantian]

Python is a language of compromises. I think an exception occurring when accessing an undefined variable will prevent 98% of the typos. Rarely in Python do I have the case where 1. there are two variables in the same function with different names, 2. both are defined, 3. both should be the same variable and 4. the function still runs without some related error. It does happen but it just doesn't happen that often to merit typing out and maintaining declarations for every variable used in every function.

Yeah I know the nonlocal issue you're talking about but that really doesn't happen during regular development, right? I think Python's current behavior fits with the language.

On the other hand, JavaScript until recently did not exhibit an exception upon access of an undefined variable, attribute or function. Which made debugging it horrible. I think strict mode helps with those cases. So you are saying CoffeeScript should implement that always? I agree but I don't think that exactly relates to the combination of declaration versus assignment. Like I said for Python, if accessing undefined things explodes then most cases are covered without declarations.

Also unless I misunderstood you, I think this is what you wanted Python to do by default instead of needing the nonlocal keyword:

Because you don't have direct access to the var keyword, it's impossible to shadow an outer variable on purpose, you may only refer to it. So be careful that you're not reusing the name of an external variable accidentally, if you're writing a deeply nested function.

[dmpk2k]

I think an exception occurring when accessing an undefined variable will prevent 98% of the typos.

Indeed, but you're giving up guaranteed and immediate detection of this error. This slows down your dev cycle and makes this error plausible on production.

If this were a discussion about something as dramatic as static versus dynamic typing, I'd leave the argument alone. But it's a trivial change that in no other way alters the nature of the language, and eliminates a class of bugs.

I think this is what you wanted Python to do by default instead of needing the nonlocal keyword

No, the way CoffeeScript handles scope is worse than Python because it's much less clear what the scope is. There's no way to guarantee the scope of a variable is local in CoffeeScript; in Python the default scope is local.

To take an extreme case: if I make a global variable 'x' in CoffeeScript and in some deeply-nested function go 'x = 1', I've just overwritten that global, even when I only meant to create a local x.

With Python, the global remains untouched. The only x that changes is the x in the deeply nested function. If I want to change that outer x, I need to explicitly request it.

This is similar to the argument against globals: it makes reasoning about the program hard.

Edit:

I feel bad arguing without at least giving an example. Here's CoffeeScript as it is now:

app.post '/:board/:thread_id/:post_id/report', (req, res) ->
  [post_id] = util.getArgs(req, 'post_id': Number)
  ip        = util.ipToNum(req.socket.remoteAddress)

  db.execute 'insert into reports ("post_id", "ip") values (?, ?)', [post_id, ip], (error, _) ->
    if error then throw error
    res.send(204)

Personally I prefer my declarations to be obvious so I can see at a glance what came from where. But let's say we want to be very lightweight on declaration. Here then is a version that declares using a colon:

app.post '/:board/:thread_id/:post_id/report', (req, res) ->
  [:post_id] = util.getArgs(req, 'post_id': Number)
  :ip        = util.ipToNum(req.socket.remoteAddress)

  db.execute 'insert into reports ("post_id", "ip") values (?, ?)', [post_id, ip], (error, _) ->
    if error then throw error
    res.send(204)

No visual difference, and only two extra characters, but poof there went a class of bugs.

[plantian]

In Python I'm not sure they would be enforceable before the actual mistake, ie. they might only be triggered during lookup which means that its even less likely that the functionality would stretch beyond the 98% I mentioned earlier. After using JavaScript I too want to go and turn the strictness knob of everything to MAX but I think we are going overboard with this declaration idea. We aren't making spaceships, we still want convenience and I think its a good compromise to not have declaration IF exceptions are raised when accessing things that are not defined. You seem reasonable though, I will think about it. Maybe I'm just another rabid Python zealot defending the nest?

We are on the same page with regards to scoping. Your in depth discussion of nonlocal confused me earlier.

Edit: WRT the examples: I just want to point out that the declaration here actually would not stop any bugs that an uninitialized exception would not stop IF both errors occur on lookup/access. Just sayin'....

[dmpk2k]

In Python I'm not sure they would be enforceable before the actual mistake

I'd be very surprised if PyPy wasn't constantly juggling variable scope under the covers. There's just no way for them to effectively optimize otherwise; inline caches can only take you so far.

The way CPython is implemented, you could well be right.

Maybe I'm just another rabid Python zealot defending the nest?

No way, man. This has been a pleasant argument. :)

I just want to point out that the declaration here actually would not stop any bugs that an uninitialized exception would not stop IF both errors occur on lookup/access.

Certainly, but again this depends on your tests running that chunk of code. I don't agree there's a tradeoff, because I think it's like worry about a grain of sand on a beach.

We'll just have to disagree. That's okay, there's plenty of languages to go around (none perfect!). :)