for those who need a quick and available everywhere solution, this is the Makefile line for coffeescript.
%.js: %.coffee coffee -c $< On Friday, 10 May 2013 02:29:36 UTC+2, ~flow wrote: > > i recently opened an issue https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/5430 > concerning require.extensions, and got told that > > "People should not be using require.extensions. It's officially > deprecated", "Compile your code to JavaScript prior to running it." "There > is never any need for additional filetype extensions. Node runs > JavaScript"; "we're not bothered with tens of other dialects that require > compilation and are written in code that's not readable for JavaScript > programmer"; "stop relying on this horrible feature" > > in no unclear words. i was a little shocked, since my perception has > always been that require.extensions was the strike of a genius. with little > effort, you can hook in filetypes and make it so that they are require'd > transparently, no matter whether they represent data / programs as > javascript, json, coffeescript, whatever. > > ok it's a global hook which, in theory might lead to problems (but in > years of writing coffeescript hasn't been a problem even once. > > i love the fact that i do not have to compile everything in advance / add > a buildscript / are forced to keep a coffeescript watch process in the > background. coming from python, i was also very happy to see that those > pernacious *.pyc files that used to litter my directories were now a thing > of the past—i mean, that is code duplication enforced by the system, > utterly avoidable. > > to me, javascript is a wonderful language with some rough edges and a > horribly cluttered syntax. now here comes nodejs and all those wonderful > home-grown programming languages that take advantage of the great compiling > target that javascript running on nodejs is. dumbing down `require` will be > sad news for all the many people that are using those new languages daily. > > as a user of coffeescript, the fact that coffeescript compiles to > javascript is a fact that i have to be aware of, but it is not something > that i want to be (or need be) constantly reminded of. doing on-the-fly, > transparent compilation is the way to go; it has never been any appreciable > drain on resources, either. it sure will continue doing things that way. > > if they kill require.extensions with no sensible replacement, things will > just get more difficult. it won't be too difficult to come up with a > sensible replacement—one could even predict that sooner or later, there > will be modules in npm that will allow you to `require 'old-require'` to > replace the new require with the good ole'. gone a bit of efficiency, gone > a bit of standardization. > > so what are the good, the bad and the ugly facts about require.extensions? > > -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.