it's called coroutines, skip the syntactic BS On Aug 18, 6:44 pm, Tony Huang <cnwz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I prefer Wind.js for following reasons: > > 1) Compared to Streamline, Wind.js has better syntax > It's easy to compare which one is more readable or native: > Streamline uses a lot of underlines which makes program less readable. > Instead, The await syntax of Wind.js is more like native language. > > 2) Compared to CoffeeScript/IcedCoffeeScript/Streamline, Wind.js doesn't > need pre-compilation process > One of the most awesome feature of node.js is it doesn't need compilation. > As a result, I can modify the code and test it without any delay, which > provide better productivity. > At the deploy time, it's easy to just create a tarball of current source > code, upload to the server, and deploy it. > If we use coffeescript or streamline, I have to do either: > a, Deploy _node to the server (only for streamline) > b, Precompile code into javascript > > 3) Wind.js has better compatibility > I develop my node.js project with the WebStrom IDE from JetBrains. The > implementation of Wind made it easy to work with any existing js IDEs. Code > completion is just working seamlessly. > At the same time, Wind.js is easily to take effect in existing codes. You > don't need to completely rewrite your code in CoffeeScript, or change the > file extension to _js > > Hope this will be helpful, thank you. > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Marcel Laverdet <mar...@laverdet.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, the differences between Jsex/Wind and Streamline > > (and for that matter IcedCoffeeScript and TameJS) are largely superficial. > > The tough part is the compiler, which you can only do so many ways; all > > other features are just bells and whistles which could be implemented by a > > user of any library. I prefer Streamline since it seems like Bruno has done > > a really good job under the hood and it seems cleaner overall. Though > > personally I just use Futures from node-fibers directly (I mean I'm the > > author after all). > > > On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Axel Kittenberger wrote: > > >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Bruno Jouhier <bjouh...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>> Regarding your point 1), there is no difference in the browser: > >>> streamline provides a transform API which is just equivalent to the > >>> Wind.compile API. I don't understand your point. > > >> I consider more diversity generally a good sign. For example regarding > >> one of my free software projects to my knowledge there is no other alive > >> free software project out there that uses a similar approach - to my > >> dismay. One or the other time something did blink up and when I noted it I > >> took the chance to analyze their code, and get new inspiration and ideas. > > >> So wind got a eval() inside the code. Its not that a big thing to me, > >> certainly achievable with streamline as well, since its javascript > >> itself. Maybe in streamline we're missing a predefined or requireable > >> _eval() call to streamline generate/eval streamlined code on the fly? I > >> haven't yet felt the need for it, but it sounds like a completion to the > >> API. > > >> Input source as comments - as far it isn't there it might be a useful > >> idea to some? I use streamline always as -lp to preserve lines, so for the > >> generated code you get a 1:1 relation to the source code. > > >> Wrapping everything in effectively an eval() call has possibly its > >> merrits, since you can call node directly (with parameters to it, its > >> possible with streamline but needs a little more complicated call to node). > >> Or code that is not streamlined/(un)winded is not touched at all. > > >> I wonder which tool produces the better stack traces? I consider the eval > >> call might be a drawback to that. Other than that still looking for a good > >> comperison that actually doesn't do the usual thing about streamline > >> telling stuff about it, thats just not true. > > >> -- > >> Job Board:http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > >> Posting guidelines: > >>https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "nodejs" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > > > -- > > Sent from My iPhone > > > -- > > Job Board:http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > > Posting guidelines: > >https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "nodejs" group. > > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > Tony Huang cnwz...@gmail.com > wz...@hotmail.com > wz...@vip.sina.com
-- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
