[WayneDB]

I don't see the problem.

- If I had written Javascript, I would have to debug the Javascript that is running in the browser.

- If a tool writes Javascript for me, I have to debug Javascript running in the browser.

A better wish would be: I hope that your tool outputs nicely formatted and easy to debug Javascript.

[bdfh42]

But it will not write JavaScript the way you would write it - and (avoiding arguments about personality in code) that JavaScript will be way harder to follow and debug.

[jdonaldson]

I agree, but generating "harder to debug" output isn't really a big argument against generators.

The first argument is that "the style is different". I use a js generator language (not this one, I don't want to shift attention), and it does "nice" things that would be a pain for me to do manually... like setting up namespaces for code, spacing everything perfectly. Even if the output is not to your taste, at least you know that the style will be 100% consistent in style and implementation. I never have problems debugging.

The other argument is that "the generated code is complex/ugly". Unfortunately, "fast" code is often ugly. Static compilers can do some optimizations by default (e.g. optimized for loops), and you only need to worry about the "pretty" code at the higher level of abstraction. I doubt you will ever have to debug one of these optimizations, any decent compiler should get them right. You merely have to understand why they were used, which often makes you a better programmer to boot.

[michaelwww]

It's likely there would be less need for JavaScript debugging.