M1573RMU74710N on A Python programmer’s first impression of CoffeeScript

Comment on A Python programmer’s first impression of CoffeeScript parent

I see where you're coming from, but it seems a lot like "my biggest complaint about languages I don't know is that I don't know them".

To be fair, I think there are varying degrees of intuitiveness, clarity, etc with languages but I don't think your example really demonstrates a schism in that regard between JS and CS:

    $('.shopping_cart').bind 'click', (event) =>
        @customer.purchase @cart

     var self = this;
     $('.shopping_card').bind('click', function(event) {
       return self.customer.purchase(self.cart);
     });

If you look at the two together, you'll see everything is almost in exactly the same place. The only difference is some punctuation and small syntactic changes.

Coffeescript should be pretty intuitive for anyone experienced with Javascript, but it does take time to learn and "train" your eyes and brain to understand the syntax...otherwise it wouldn't have much point (but this is true of any language).

I think it's a great virtue of Coffeescript that the CS version is so close to your JS one, while being more readable (imho), shorter, etc.

>The inconsistent use prevents me from being able to skim code and get a feel for what it's doing.

Again, I can't help but feeling like this is a non-Spanish speaking complaining that Spanish prevents them from reading and understanding a Spanish language Magazine.

The optional syntax in Coffeescript is generally optional for a reason, because it is determined by something else (generally indentation).

I think you're right that this could be abused, and I could see how someone might not like it...but personally I prefer it. I like languages that will just do the obvious thing, and let me spell it out when I want something else.

I think again your example doesn't really bear out your point, as it seems plain as day to me that each item is separate and I can't imagine needing commas to differentiate them (though I can respect you might not feel the same).

In fact, contrary to helping commas, are more likely to introduce errors. One of the most common errors in JS is forgetting a comma in a list like that, or the dreaded "hanging comma" error that will only cause an error in IE.

Not having commas also allow easy yanking and insertion of whole lines to reorder the list, etc.

Don't get me wrong, again I think you have a point, it just seems to be that the crux of it is this style syntax is not your cup of tea (which is fine).

On an unrelated note, I'd advise against using the name "self" for variables in Javascript, as it's already taken: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/window.self

shazow 15y

You go back and forth between saying that "you don't get it because you don't get it" and "this is my preference, but you do have a point."

I am experienced in JavaScript, and I believe you that I could train myself to code in CoffeeScript or even brainfuck, but should I want to? I am a big fan of the native JavaScript syntax with a few exceptions. I believe it can be improved, but I don't believe CoffeeScript fixes more than it breaks.

A more appropriate metaphor is a non-Spanish speaker complaining that you dubbed my English movie with more English spoken by a Spanish man with a really heavy Spanish accent. I can still understand the movie if I try but it certainly doesn't improve the experience. Perhaps it does for Spanish people?

I don't like languages that let you do what you think is obvious, and when I look at 5 different examples of the exact same code they all look completely different because it turns out that there's no agreement between what people think is obvious (big problem with Ruby). That's my personal preference.

Using browser-compatibility examples is unfair. I'm not arguing against precompiling with an improved syntax, I'm arguing against precompiling against this specific syntax. It's not hard to imagine a syntax where hanging commas are automagically fixed (even Google Closure does this for you). Inserting whole lines to reorder the list works perfectly fine if you have hanging commas.

  var foo = [
    1,
    2,
    3,
  ]

Re: self, no harm done if your variables are scoped, as they always should be. For bonus irony, var self = this; in the root scope is eqv to what it would be anyways.

Comments