[threecreepio]

I both like and use CoffeeScript, but the video does show off one thing that i personally quite dislike about it.. Implicit returns (which I love in ruby..).

When trying to port over some applications to coffeescript, I had to revisit a whole lot of my functions to add in an empty return; line after code like:

    test: (m) ->
      m(i) for i in this.set

Since I didn't really expect them to build up and return arrays of the results of invoking m, which at times could result in a method that would generate gigantic arrays that I would subsequently throw away, killing my performance.

I probably should have expected that, sure, and if you don't have to deal with too much data it probably won't matter.

[jashkenas]

Out of curiosity ... if you love implicit returns in principle, then why would you dislike them in this context?

Certainly, you need to keep in mind the return value of a function while you're writing it -- if you don't want to return any value, then just "return". And it's definitely something that you need to keep more in mind while porting JS than when writing code from scratch. But given all that, would you really prefer explicit returns in CoffeeScript?

[threecreepio]

I hadn't actually looked at the issues list to notice that this and similar issues have already been brought up plenty enough, so, sorry about that. And I do like implicit returns, and they're one of the main reasons I'm using CoffeeScript in some projects.

What I was trying to express was that I don't generally run into this issue in ruby because the similar looping constructs don't behave this way, and don't carry the same kind of unexpected side-effects:

    def test(lst) lst.each{|i|do_stuff(i)} end

this method will return "lst" back to me, it won't create any new arrays of the do_stuff(i) results, the same goes for for/while loops, whereas:

    def test(lst) lst.map{|i|do_stuff(i)} end

will return the block results. The key difference being that the map method always creates an array and returns it, even if I would have a return; after, so it is consistent.

The only situation where I get into the problem is with looping, and after some time using CoffeeScript, only rarely, so it may just be one of those things you have to put up with. Still crops up occasionally after refactoring though.

I would not want to get rid of implicit returns, and would far rather continue dealing with the loop problems than that. Would just love it if those weren't the only options.

[eaurouge]

Out of curiosity ... if you love implicit returns in principle, then why would you dislike them in this context?

I'll guess it's because speed is less of a concern when programming in Ruby.

if you don't want to return any value, then just "return".

Yes, but that leads to clutter and goes against one of the selling points of CoffeeScript.

Previous discussions on this:

http://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/1401

http://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/899

[clux]

I quit using CS for essentially this reason. Implicit returns are a nice idea, but they are just implemented a bit too inconsistently. Additionally, it changes the language from being "it's just JavaScript" to sugared JS with different behaviour.

I listed some of the pitfalls with implicit returns at the following CS issue: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/899#issuec...

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Well, it's part of the CoffeeScript idea that everything is an expression, but surely they could have manual returns?