Nice to have you chime in here Jeremy. I personally use CoffeeScript a lot. I also code in Ruby and understand its appeal from that perspective. However I am curious what your take is on dxbydt's reply below. He makes a very interesting comment about the overhead of objects vs simple message passing/currying/etc.
^ Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard of Synapse but its the most unobtrusive data-binding lib I've seen so far. Very cool indeed!
As far as implementation goes, it still feels "wrong" to me. I love syntactic sugar when possible, but forcing one paradigm on another without measurable benefit (aside from one's comfort/preference) just seems superfluous to me.
I would personally implement it using a modular FP pattern, you get constructors, private methods and all those juicy bits we love about OO, except we are in a completely functional state of mind.
Well stated, and I agree 100% it is a sort of blindspot for this article. That said I agree with him on a level that CS does encourage a sort of OO band-aid approach towards functional programming and will definitely impede newcomers from embracing the power that comes with the built-in paradigm. I feel that it should not be in core, but am happy as you are to simply use what works and ignore what doesnt
True that - I actually disagree with his final conclusion, because you can still program functionally in CS. I embraced JS prototypes a long time ago and have no need for the OO magic offered by CS. That said I still prefer it for a good chunk of my development.
Coffee vs JS rants typically degenerate into emotional outbursts, I was impressed by the author's overall restraint and advocacy for both approaches