The other option that people keep talking about is a standardized byte code that any compiler could target for the browser. Brendan talked about the difficulties of this in one of his quickie podcasts: http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/pages/20101122
Just a nitpick: CoffeeScript is clearly not psuedo-code, as it has a grammar and can be compiled to JS that runs perfectly. That's like saying Python is psuedo-code! Really, this is a compliment to its syntax (and it has been said that Python is executable psuedo-code, as a compliment). Sorry, I couldn't help myself! </nitpick> _Nick_ On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Scott Koon <[email protected]> wrote: > IMO there are two factions of developers that use frameworks that compile > other languages into JS. > > 1) Developers who don't love JS and think that if they write code that > compiles to JS in their language of choice, they will be better off and more > productive. (GWT, ScriptSharp, etc...) > > 2) Developers who think that the syntax of the language as it exists now is > a little clunky. Most of these developers write a DSL in JavaScript to > output JavaScript. (CoffeeScript). > > I think that the face of the language will change and evolve in some ways > to satisfy group number 2, but I'm not sure if JS will ever been good enough > for the developers in group number 1. They often have legitimate reasons for > wanting to write in their language of choice (e.g. all unit tests are > written in the same language and run at the same time on their build > server). I'd argue against them being more productive. Both groups at some > point have to wonder "Is there a bug in the compiler?" when they encounter a > bug in their JS. > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Hay (Husky) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I guess it depends on the integration with the backend. If you have >> lots of Java programmers that would like to keep control of everything >> in one language you could use something like GWT or Vaadin. However, >> you could also take that argument the other way around and write >> everything in Javascript, including on the backend (using something >> like Node). >> >> if the question is mostly about maintainability on the frontend i >> would look more into solutions like RequireJS that allow you to make >> your code more modular. >> >> -- Hay >> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Fran <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm lately looking into frameworks like GWT or Cappuccino, or recently >> > Coffee-script, although this one is more a peuse-code that compiles into >> > javascript than a framework, but still it seems to follow similar >> > philosophy. They seem to keep getting stronger among the js developer >> > community. My question is, could this be the future of Javascript, being >> > compiled into from another language or some peudocode ?, I understand it >> > makes better maintainable code among other advantages but, are we not >> losing >> > control over our js applications ?. >> > >> > Don't get me wrong, I actually feel quite curious about these >> > frameworks/pseudo-code and see lots of advantages, but I'd like to know >> what >> > other developers think about it and if they are using them in big >> projects. >> > >> > I'll soon start working on a big project from scratch, where Google Map >> is >> > involved, and I'm taken them into consideration, playing around, but >> still >> > not quite convinced. >> > >> > Any suggestion, advise or thought ? >> > >> > Thanks in advance >> > >> > Fran >> > >> > -- >> > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > >> > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]<jsmentors%[email protected]> >> > >> >> -- >> To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<jsmentors%[email protected]> >> > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<jsmentors%[email protected]> > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
