Hi Rogelio, On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Rogelio Mita <rogeliom...@activitycentral.com> wrote: > Hi all!, > > working with web activities urges me to use CoffeeScript. > - Is there any decision taken on this? > - Do you discussed this topic in some occasion? or is irrelevant?
It appeared a few times. In January when sugar-web didn't exist: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2013-January/041616.html Then in August I wrote, after doing Gears activity: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2013-August/044445.html "(GearSketch) It is written in coffeescript, and after playing for a bit, I can see it as a possible choice for activity developers. Its syntax sugar makes the code look more like the gtk activities written in python." "One of the reasons we went for plain js for sugar-web was because of the View Source feature. Well, seems that since I researched a few months ago, Source Maps has improved a lot, and I can see coffee code in the web inspector. If the code breaks or if I add a breakpoint, for example. Nice! Also, GitHub does a nice job displaying only the coffee changes, and hidding the JS changes by default:" So yes, it is a potable option for web activity developers. Now, in some real projects it happened to me that I started using Coffe or TypeScript and ended falling back to straight JS. Think about A. the compilation step B. no way to try things in the inspector console C. need to translate code examples and known solutions from JS to Coffee -- .. manuq .. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
