[soulcyon]

markbrown4, on 17 July 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

Test is out for yourself and see, until then it's all hearsay.
You're right that javascript has a different object model with the prototype object, but you're assuming that js' model is broken, it's not and it works quite well. And again lumping Coffee in the poor performance basket without one shred of evidence. You're going in circles for no reason.

You should read what I actually say before getting emotionally attached. That sort of fanboyism is unhealthy.

I never said the JS Model is broken, but rather it's slower for emulating OO paradigm. Thus by logical conclusion, Coffeescript can be put into the slow-performance bracket.

[Ruku]

soulcyon, on 17 July 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

You should read what I actually say before getting emotionally attached. That sort of fanboyism is unhealthy.

I never said the JS Model is broken, but rather it's slower for emulating OO paradigm. Thus by logical conclusion, Coffeescript can be put into the slow-performance bracket.

What I believe markbrown4 is trying to emphasise is that performance isn't the only measure of code quality. CoffeeScript was designed for developers used to working with languages like Python and Ruby; it makes certain idioms from such languages available in client side code too. Personally, I find it much more pleasant than writing JavaScript code myself; I've never run into any issues that were overly difficult to diagnose, nor do I find it to be a cause of performance issues.

Ultimately though it's just another tool that I can use where it's appropriate. Why there's a holy war going on in this thread is beyond me -- nobody is forcing you to use the language

[markbrown4]

soulcyon, on 17 July 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

You should read what I actually say before getting emotionally attached. That sort of fanboyism is unhealthy.

I never said the JS Model is broken, but rather it's slower for emulating OO paradigm. Thus by logical conclusion, Coffeescript can be put into the slow-performance bracket.

The only reason I've kept arguing with you is because you keep making incorrect statements filled with inuendo with no evidence. That sort of thing does tend to frustrate.

But, again you're wrong, coffeescript is not emulating an OO paradigm. Objects have been being used in javascript for a long time. That's why Javascript has the 'new' keyword and creates a prototype object alongside every function you create.
Inheritance is one area that isn't directly supported by the language so that's when you need to construct new prototypes dynamically and copy properties. This is one are that could be sped up if they decided to implement extensions in javascript.

But this is all moot, faster compared to what?
People structure their programs this way because it makes sense to, that's the reason you choose to use OO constructs.
Not because of some performance metric.

In any case, I'm done arguing with you, it's clear a hater's gonna hate.

Ruku, on 17 July 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

What I believe markbrown4 is trying to emphasise is that performance isn't the only measure of code quality. CoffeeScript was designed for developers used to working with languages like Python and Ruby; it makes certain idioms from such languages available in client side code too. Personally, I find it much more pleasant than writing JavaScript code myself; I've never run into any issues that were overly difficult to diagnose, nor do I find it to be a cause of performance issues.

Ultimately though it's just another tool that I can use where it's appropriate. Why there's a holy war going on in this thread is beyond me -- nobody is forcing you to use the language

Coffeescript wasn't designed for people using those languages, it was designed to make javascript better, period. But it has been influenced by them.

My bullshit detector would kick if people tried to convince me that German was as pretty as French also.

[Daniel15]

CoffeeScript isn't emulating any OO paradigm, it's just making the syntax for creating prototypes and doing prototypal inheritance a bit nicer. Inheritance is something built-in to JavaScript; whenever you call a method or access a property, JavaScript traverses the inheritance chain until it finds what you're looking for.

https://developer.mo...tance_Revisited

Other bits of your code are going to become performance bottlenecks long before the CoffeeScript-generated JavaScript becomes an issue.

[markbrown4]

Daniel, I love you.

I hadn't used Object.create() to do this sort of thing before.

This seems appropriate for this thread. Dmitry is one of my all-time heroes.



Why your Javascript still sucks?
You don't have to use Coffeescript actually.
There are no excuses to suck at anything.

[soulcyon]

I never said Coffeescript is emulating the OO paradigm, ffs.
Are you so blinded by your fanboy-attitude that you will put words in my mouth? There is a distinct difference between my allegation and what you are proposing.

JS is already pretty crappy at handling Objects, forget about trying to do Encapsulation and Inheritance.

Coffeescript will only further the pains of bad performing Javascript, it will not help anyone write smarter or better Javascript. AFAIK, its a "designer" language and nothing better.

[gibbonweb]

Can't we just all agree that JavaScript is a mess an CoffeeScript is a question of personal preference and call it a day?

[markbrown4]

gibbonweb, on 17 July 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Can't we just all agree that JavaScript is a mess an CoffeeScript is a question of personal preference and call it a day?

I don't agree to that

There's enough info in this thread now that people can make up their own minds.