> > I like CoffeeScript. But CoffeeScript is largely syntactic sugar. Hardly > anything in the way of new semantics. And it encourages traditional stateful > OOP and classical inheritance. > > Underscore.js does what it can, but it's goals are largely trumped by > CoffeeScript. > > David > > CoffeeScript and Coco are largely Javascript. I'm just saying they are a fairer comparison than naked Javascript. Especially when we speak about how awkward it is to write Javascript.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
