Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by btipling 4874 days ago
That was an honest question more than a complaint. Why do CoffeeScript libraries not use the coffee extension? For broader appeal? Even if you had JavaScript documentation, I would see the source was written in CoffeeScript and realize I can't easily evaluate the quality of the source. Choosing CoffeeScript must mean you prefer it over JavaScript, so why use the extension of a language you do not prefer over one you do?
2 comments
yashke 4874 days ago
Ok, now I see what you meant. So basically we don't want to limit audience of that idea to just CoffeeScripters. Also: maybe we'll switch to JS some day - if community show the need.
link
ricardobeat 4874 days ago
You can look at the source just like any other js project. It might not look totally clean as a hand-written project, but there are absolutely worse things than looking at compiled coffeescript (cough lodash https://github.com/bestiejs/lodash/blob/master/lodash.js#L38...)
link
k3n 4874 days ago
To be fair, that's a template you linked...

Also, why go out-of-your-way to bash another project? Why didn't you link the hexagonal source you mentioned, which would have been productive, instead of lodash?

link
ricardobeat 4874 days ago
That template is source code for a function, it becomes the body of many lodash methods using eval. It's not out of my way, it sits right on top of my personal "ugly code" list; couldn't think of a better (worse?) example.

As I understand it there is no hexagonal source, it's just an architecture.

link