Hacker News Reader

I guess I'm just amazed that they (rails core) haven't learned from the RJS mistake. These 'fads' to get around JS syntax are terrible as standards.

What is so wrong with writing idiomatic, unobtrusive JS? I personally don't care for JS syntax (compared to the beauty of ruby and haml), but that's life... JS syntax my be ugly, but it can be written elegantly.

View on HN

What's there to learn from the RJS mistake? RJS was fucked because it attempted to pretend JS didn't exist and muddled the separation of concerns between client and server-side; CoffeeScript makes no such mistake.

CoffeeScript is much more like HAML/SASS in function, and while there are arguments against those in some environments (like if you need to hire a lot of designers without a dev mentality or environment), they've been proven to be very effective in practice, and I'm quite sure CoffeeScript will be the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com