Brief Video: Rewriting JavaScript into CoffeeScript(ryanflorence.com)

40 pointsby jashkenasقبل 14 سنة25 comments

Brief Video: Rewriting JavaScript into CoffeeScript

http://ryanflorence.com/2012/javascript-coffeescript-rewrite

8 comments

I both like and use CoffeeScript, but the video does show off one thing that i personally quite dislike about it.. Implicit returns (which I love in ruby..).

When trying to port over some applications to coffeescript, I had to revisit a whole lot of my functions to add in an empty return; line after code like:

    test: (m) ->
      m(i) for i in this.set

Since I didn't really expect them to build up and return arrays of the results of invoking m, which at times could result in a method that would generate gigantic arrays that I would subsequently throw away, killing my performance.

I probably should have expected that, sure, and if you don't have to deal with too much data it probably won't matter.

jashkenasقبل 14 سنة

Out of curiosity ... if you love implicit returns in principle, then why would you dislike them in this context?

Certainly, you need to keep in mind the return value of a function while you're writing it -- if you don't want to return any value, then just "return". And it's definitely something that you need to keep more in mind while porting JS than when writing code from scratch. But given all that, would you really prefer explicit returns in CoffeeScript?

threecreepioقبل 14 سنة

I hadn't actually looked at the issues list to notice that this and similar issues have already been brought up plenty enough, so, sorry about that. And I do like implicit returns, and they're one of the main reasons I'm using CoffeeScript in some projects.

What I was trying to express was that I don't generally run into this issue in ruby because the similar looping constructs don't behave this way, and don't carry the same kind of unexpected side-effects:

    def test(lst) lst.each{|i|do_stuff(i)} end

this method will return "lst" back to me, it won't create any new arrays of the do_stuff(i) results, the same goes for for/while loops, whereas:

    def test(lst) lst.map{|i|do_stuff(i)} end

will return the block results. The key difference being that the map method always creates an array and returns it, even if I would have a return; after, so it is consistent.

The only situation where I get into the problem is with looping, and after some time using CoffeeScript, only rarely, so it may just be one of those things you have to put up with. Still crops up occasionally after refactoring though.

I would not want to get rid of implicit returns, and would far rather continue dealing with the loop problems than that. Would just love it if those weren't the only options.

eaurougeقبل 14 سنة

Out of curiosity ... if you love implicit returns in principle, then why would you dislike them in this context?

I'll guess it's because speed is less of a concern when programming in Ruby.

if you don't want to return any value, then just "return".

Yes, but that leads to clutter and goes against one of the selling points of CoffeeScript.

Previous discussions on this:

http://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/1401

http://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/899

cluxقبل 14 سنة

I quit using CS for essentially this reason. Implicit returns are a nice idea, but they are just implemented a bit too inconsistently. Additionally, it changes the language from being "it's just JavaScript" to sugared JS with different behaviour.

I listed some of the pitfalls with implicit returns at the following CS issue: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/899#issuec...

TazeTSchnitzelقبل 14 سنة

Well, it's part of the CoffeeScript idea that everything is an expression, but surely they could have manual returns?

zzzmarcusقبل 14 سنة

You can also cut and paste it into this site: http://js2coffee.org/. It's not always perfect, but it will get you 95% of the way there.

jashkenasقبل 14 سنة

For more in this genre, see: http://www.screenr.com/xd0

nxnقبل 14 سنة

Is that code really valid CoffeeScript? Last I looked, and I admit that the last time was months ago, 'on' was a reserved keyword (an alias of 'true') and I had to do some quite ugly hacks to be able to have a method named 'on'. This may have been related to dynamically adding the method onto the prototype of some constructor rather than defining it in a class.

Besides that, I still get feelings of discomfort when thinking about rewriting JS to coffeescript when knowing that the compiler will just write it as JS again.

EDIT: Tried it. In this case it seems to works.

gps408قبل 14 سنة

Can someone explain the 'same name key:value shortcut' feature?

jashkenasقبل 14 سنة

It's a DRY thing. Often in JS, object literals assign their keys to values of the same name -- you'll see a lot of this:

    $.ajax(url, {
      data: data,
      contentType: contentType,
      success: success,
      error: error
    });

... not so nice. So as a first stab, you can clean it up like so:

    $.ajax url, {data, contentType, success, error}

... but it's especially nice in the context of destructuring assignment, like for your Node.js imports, for example.

    {spawn, exec} = require 'child_process'

gps408قبل 14 سنة

Nice. Thanks Jeremy.

munificentقبل 14 سنة

This is very cool, though I personally find postfix flow control confusing to read. The postfix loop with destructuring is especially odd to me. As I read left to right, I see variables that don't exist "yet" until I get to the later loop clause.

This is probably just a familiarity thing and I would get used to it, but compared to all of the other changes in the video which I think are pretty clean that stood out to me as a bit... iffy?

jashkenasقبل 14 سنة

Agreed. I think there's a bit of LOC-golfing at work here. That loop is more nicely written as:

    for {handler, context} in @events[topic]
      handler.apply context, args

MatthewPhillipsقبل 14 سنة

I agree. I also find unless statements to be difficult to read. I use this pattern all of the time in my JavaScript:

  if(!foo) {
    maybeDoSomething();

    return;
  }

  bar();

This lets me early exit, if needed, while letting the meat of the function not suffer from unnecessary indentation.

The unless statement makes the early exit seem like the default action rather than the exceptional action it (hopefully) is.

[deleted]قبل 14 سنة

(1)

ectoقبل 14 سنة

But... why?

chcقبل 14 سنة

If you look back a little ways, you'll see he previously asked the same question in an earlier article. I think this video is sort of his answer.

udpقبل 14 سنة

Seek to the end.