On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:02 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > I’ve been reading recently the module discussions and one particular concept > troubled me. > > I don’t understand the motivation behind an on-the-fly ‘translate’ loader > hook that would compile CoffeeScript into JavaScript. > > Would every browser have to include a CoffeeScript compiler? Which version? > > If just seems like the only result would be more ‘web fragmentation’ by > having browsers with different EcmaScript implementations and different > compilers/translators of many different languages? How is that going to > work out? > > While I understand the benefits in theory, in practice I get the > overwhelming impression that an on-the-fly 'translate' concept is a great > way to break the web, not make it any better. > > Am I missing something, what problem does it solve?
Without reading the module spec to make sure of this, I'm nearly certain that the 'translate' hook is for authors to supply *their own* translation script. There won't be any built-in ones. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
