I prefer Wind.js for following reasons: 1) Compared to Streamline, Wind.js has better syntax It's easy to compare which one is more readable or native: Streamline uses a lot of underlines which makes program less readable. Instead, The await syntax of Wind.js is more like native language.
2) Compared to CoffeeScript/IcedCoffeeScript/Streamline, Wind.js doesn't need pre-compilation process One of the most awesome feature of node.js is it doesn't need compilation. As a result, I can modify the code and test it without any delay, which provide better productivity. At the deploy time, it's easy to just create a tarball of current source code, upload to the server, and deploy it. If we use coffeescript or streamline, I have to do either: a, Deploy _node to the server (only for streamline) b, Precompile code into javascript 3) Wind.js has better compatibility I develop my node.js project with the WebStrom IDE from JetBrains. The implementation of Wind made it easy to work with any existing js IDEs. Code completion is just working seamlessly. At the same time, Wind.js is easily to take effect in existing codes. You don't need to completely rewrite your code in CoffeeScript, or change the file extension to _js Hope this will be helpful, thank you. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Marcel Laverdet <[email protected]>wrote: > As far as I can tell, the differences between Jsex/Wind and Streamline > (and for that matter IcedCoffeeScript and TameJS) are largely superficial. > The tough part is the compiler, which you can only do so many ways; all > other features are just bells and whistles which could be implemented by a > user of any library. I prefer Streamline since it seems like Bruno has done > a really good job under the hood and it seems cleaner overall. Though > personally I just use Futures from node-fibers directly (I mean I'm the > author after all). > > On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Axel Kittenberger wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Bruno Jouhier <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Regarding your point 1), there is no difference in the browser: >>> streamline provides a transform API which is just equivalent to the >>> Wind.compile API. I don't understand your point. >>> >> >> I consider more diversity generally a good sign. For example regarding >> one of my free software projects to my knowledge there is no other alive >> free software project out there that uses a similar approach - to my >> dismay. One or the other time something did blink up and when I noted it I >> took the chance to analyze their code, and get new inspiration and ideas. >> >> So wind got a eval() inside the code. Its not that a big thing to me, >> certainly achievable with streamline as well, since its javascript >> itself. Maybe in streamline we're missing a predefined or requireable >> _eval() call to streamline generate/eval streamlined code on the fly? I >> haven't yet felt the need for it, but it sounds like a completion to the >> API. >> >> Input source as comments - as far it isn't there it might be a useful >> idea to some? I use streamline always as -lp to preserve lines, so for the >> generated code you get a 1:1 relation to the source code. >> >> Wrapping everything in effectively an eval() call has possibly its >> merrits, since you can call node directly (with parameters to it, its >> possible with streamline but needs a little more complicated call to node). >> Or code that is not streamlined/(un)winded is not touched at all. >> >> I wonder which tool produces the better stack traces? I consider the eval >> call might be a drawback to that. Other than that still looking for a good >> comperison that actually doesn't do the usual thing about streamline >> telling stuff about it, thats just not true. >> >> -- >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >> Posting guidelines: >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en >> > > > -- > Sent from My iPhone > > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Tony Huang [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
