[jashkenas]

I'm afraid that's not quite the reasoning...

Like everything in languages (or APIs), there's a tradeoff here. By making scoping automatic, and (hopefully) forbidding shadowing, you can make the language conceptually simpler. Think of it as making variables be "referentially transparent" in terms of their lexical scope. Everywhere you see "A" within a given lexical scope -- you know that "A" always refers to the same thing. In a language with "var" and with shadowing, "A" could mean many different things within any given lexical scope, and you have to hunt for the nearest declaration to tell which one it is.

On the downside, you have what Armin describes: If you happen to try to use the same name for two different things within the same lexical scope, it won't work.

Since it's always the case that you are able to choose a more descriptive name for your variable, and gain clearer code by it, I think it's very much a tradeoff worth making.

[barrkel]

You haven't said anything new to me here; I took all this for granted and it isn't what I'm criticizing. You haven't actually addressed my summary of the apparent reasoning for why accidental assignments to top-level symbols isn't a pathology of CoffeeScript. The bit I'm criticizing is the failure mode of "if you happen to try to use the same name for two different things within the same lexical scope, it won't work".

[jashkenas]

I see. The reason I can't address your "failure mode" with an explicit suggestion is because it isn't a failure mode in CoffeeScript: If you assign a new value to a variable in an inner scope, the variable now has a new value. If you're thinking "I want to use the same name for two different variables" ... the answer is: choose a different (better) name for one of them.

But perhaps I'm still not getting at the answer you're looking for here...

[barrkel]

You keep stating and restating how and why CoffeeScript doesn't support shadowing of symbols via lexical scoping.

That's not what I'm criticizing. Lexical shadowing is not what I'm advocating. I think your choice is fine in so far as it goes. It has its logic.

What I am criticizing is how it can fail. The top scope is different, quantitatively and qualitatively, from almost all nested scopes. It's much larger, and spread lexically over a larger area. If you have a team of developers, it will be modified concurrently. No one developer necessarily knows the full set of symbols defined in the top scope while they are writing an individual procedure.

And thus the problem: a developer thinks they've chosen a "different (better) name" for a some variable, but in fact they've chosen one that a different developer also thought was a "different (better) name", only one of them is in a lexically enclosing scope. This problem isn't likely to occur on the level of nested procedures or nested blocks, because the definitions would be visually close. But it's much more likely to happen when one of the symbols is defined in the top scope. Here, the definition could be many hundreds or thousands of lines away. It may even be in a separate commit, waiting to be merged, such that there's no way for either developer to know without closely reviewing every change.

And this is the criticism: the failure mode for this inadvertent reuse of a variable name is subtle bugs, as what one developer thought was a global symbol turns out to be modified and acquire strange values through unexpected codeflow, almost like the VM was corrupted and memory was behaving unreliably.

The qualitative difference of the top scope in situations like this is the reason why I suggested sigils or somesuch to disambiguate those scenarios. Perhaps top-level symbols can't be reassigned from nested scopes unless you use '$' as a prefix to their name; a visual shorthand that you are definitely not creating a new local symbol.

The reason I summarized your argument in the way I did is because your argument against this failure mode seems to be "don't create top scopes with lots of symbols". That's a fine argument (or rather, exhortation), but it isn't a realistic one. If the language is problematic with lots of symbols in the top scope, it should be unpleasant to use with lots of symbols in the top scope. And the unpleasantness shouldn't come from subtle bugs (the passive aggressiveness I mentioned); it should come from awkward and ugly sigils, or some other intrinsic way of discouraging those styles.

[showell30]

barrkel, I think you should create a new programming language with more sensible scoping than CoffeeScript, so that developers can create bug-free code while working in parallel on thousand-line codebases without close reviews. I would start by using "$" as a sigil to prevent top-level variables from being reassigned in nested scopes. It would be a visual shorthand that indicates that you are definitely not creating a new local symbol. This would prevent developers from needing to know the full set of symbols in the top scope. In fact, by eliminating the inadvertent reuse of variable names, you would eliminate the failure mode whereby what one developer thought to be a global symbol actually turned out to be modified. Eliminating this unexpected codeflow would be tantamount to eliminating memory corruptions in VM.

You should definitely go down this track. It would be a massive achievement.

[barrkel]

I think you think you're being sarcastic. But I do actually work for a developer tools company, and I implement language features on a continuous basis. I implemented anonymous methods - closures - for Delphi, a task that involves no small amount of scope wrangling; and FWIW, Delphi almost certainly has a larger userbase than CoffeeScript, albeit one with greyer hairs. While my specialism is in statically typed, compiled languages, issues around lexically nested scope are pretty much the same as in dynamic languages.

If you want to have a constructive conversation, you could try dialing back the snark, and addressing my arguments directly.

[showell30]

Ok, I'll dial back the snark and just be blunt. I think all your concerns about CoffeeScript are hypothetical exaggerations. I don't think you've written much CoffeeScript at all, and I suspect that if you did, you'd quickly see that your concerns are overblown. In theory, you could have thousands of lines in a single file, and two commits from a separate branch could cause an undetectable accidental naming collision. In practice, this rarely happens. Files tend to be smaller, merge changes do to tend to get scrutiny, and name collisions often have fairly obvious symptoms once you run your tests on the code.