tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821856652257554779.post3477055664348445700..comments2023-10-22T12:47:47.534+02:00Comments on Andrzej on Software: Is CoffeeScript better than Ruby?Andrzej Krzywdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06399276063142826365noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821856652257554779.post-36252938568122339642012-08-28T09:23:14.956+02:002012-08-28T09:23:14.956+02:00CoffeeScript is the worst thing to happen to JavaS...CoffeeScript is the worst thing to happen to JavaScript since the name was changed from the original "LiveScript". Can we please stop butchering JS and just accept it as a first class tool in the developer toolkit?<br /><br />While CoffeeScript does give us some shortcuts and additional options, they do come at a great cost. CoffeeScript eliminates the need to: 1) know JS syntactical rules and conventions (CoffeeScript syntax is Python-esque), 2) "think" in JS (which is a great and extremely flexible paradigm), 3) gives novice developers a false sense of confidence given that the outputted/transcompiled JS is far more difficult to debug since the developer did not actually write it. Debugging CoffeeScript is a terribly intensive labor that requires a high level of native JS expertise. 4) Complexity. Calling functionality written in CoffeeScript from a plain JS can problematic and additional development rules need to be set to deal with this. Not to mention the command-line steps that are added to the normal workflow... <br /><br />I.e. - I would not use CoffeeScript in an Enterprise environment for anything other than quick prototyping. Any decent JS developer can avoid creation of memory leaks or accidental closures (Which I think is the true purpose of this Closure Compiler toy).<br /><br />But more importantly, on what planet does it make sense to compare CoffeeScript to Ruby?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821856652257554779.post-75676849527087828952012-08-27T15:06:39.987+02:002012-08-27T15:06:39.987+02:00@Chris
Thanks for your comment!
"The bottom...@Chris<br /><br />Thanks for your comment!<br /><br />"The bottom line is if you are choosing between these two very different paradigms based on a preference for Coffeescript or Ruby then I'd say something is wrong with that."<br /><br />That's exactly the point.<br /><br />Many Ruby developers choose to stay with the monolithic approach (no separate frontend) for the reason of not having to learn new technology stacks.<br /><br />I chose to go the SPA way not because I love Coffee so much (I didn't when I made that decision), but because it makes much more sense from an architecture point of view.<br /><br />I understand that some people worry whether the JS ecosystem is mature enough. After being involved in about 20 small-medium-size SPAs I can say it's mature enough.<br /><br />This is my message - "we are ready to work with SPAs and a new technology stack, it's mature enough".Andrzej Krzywdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06399276063142826365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821856652257554779.post-59378715744736044872012-08-27T02:27:58.864+02:002012-08-27T02:27:58.864+02:00It seems pretty strange to try to compare the Coff...It seems pretty strange to try to compare the Coffeescript and Ruby languages when what it seems like you are really comparing here is the rich/smart-client approach of the JS MVC/MVVM frameworks vs the more server-side heavy approach of rails, django and .NET MVC<br /><br />My own experiences with JS MVC frameworks has been pretty poor. Saying that the ecosystem is just immature is an understatement. So maybe they do get better and maybe there is a rails-like revolution that happens in the future, but that maybe isn't here yet and may never be. For me, none of that justifies hitching my wagon to these things today.<br /><br />Today I follow the "rails-way" *mostly* (I don't use UJS much, and don't agree with sending JS responses) I also use Coffeescript for all my Javascript needs. I love both Ruby and Coffeescript as languages and I've found a way that they can both live harmoniously in my web development without any need to bring JS MVC frameworks into my life.<br /><br />The bottom line is if you are choosing between these two very different paradigms based on a preference for Coffeescript or Ruby then I'd say something is wrong with that.Chris Nicolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427805306827828707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821856652257554779.post-43304728007663449882012-08-26T18:57:15.662+02:002012-08-26T18:57:15.662+02:00Hi Donald,
ClojureScript is definitely on my list...Hi Donald,<br /><br />ClojureScript is definitely on my list of things to try out. I'm not against FP, but one of the reasons it may not get that popular as Coffee (we will see, I have no idea) is that Coffee gives many people a more familiar environment - classes, objects, etc.Andrzej Krzywdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06399276063142826365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821856652257554779.post-81987360117306916472012-08-26T18:54:26.607+02:002012-08-26T18:54:26.607+02:00Is ClojureScript better than CoffeeScript? After u...Is ClojureScript better than CoffeeScript? After using Java, Ruby, I prefer Clojure to have single language for server and client, with the power of the Java libraries.Donald Parishnoreply@blogger.com