for those who need a quick and available everywhere solution, this is the
Makefile line for coffeescript.
%.js: %.coffee
coffee -c $<
On Friday, 10 May 2013 02:29:36 UTC+2, ~flow wrote:
>
> i recently opened an issue https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/5430
> concerning require.extensions, and got told that
>
> "People should not be using require.extensions. It's officially
> deprecated", "Compile your code to JavaScript prior to running it." "There
> is never any need for additional filetype extensions. Node runs
> JavaScript"; "we're not bothered with tens of other dialects that require
> compilation and are written in code that's not readable for JavaScript
> programmer"; "stop relying on this horrible feature"
>
> in no unclear words. i was a little shocked, since my perception has
> always been that require.extensions was the strike of a genius. with little
> effort, you can hook in filetypes and make it so that they are require'd
> transparently, no matter whether they represent data / programs as
> javascript, json, coffeescript, whatever.
>
> ok it's a global hook which, in theory might lead to problems (but in
> years of writing coffeescript hasn't been a problem even once.
>
> i love the fact that i do not have to compile everything in advance / add
> a buildscript / are forced to keep a coffeescript watch process in the
> background. coming from python, i was also very happy to see that those
> pernacious *.pyc files that used to litter my directories were now a thing
> of the past—i mean, that is code duplication enforced by the system,
> utterly avoidable.
>
> to me, javascript is a wonderful language with some rough edges and a
> horribly cluttered syntax. now here comes nodejs and all those wonderful
> home-grown programming languages that take advantage of the great compiling
> target that javascript running on nodejs is. dumbing down `require` will be
> sad news for all the many people that are using those new languages daily.
>
> as a user of coffeescript, the fact that coffeescript compiles to
> javascript is a fact that i have to be aware of, but it is not something
> that i want to be (or need be) constantly reminded of. doing on-the-fly,
> transparent compilation is the way to go; it has never been any appreciable
> drain on resources, either. it sure will continue doing things that way.
>
> if they kill require.extensions with no sensible replacement, things will
> just get more difficult. it won't be too difficult to come up with a
> sensible replacement—one could even predict that sooner or later, there
> will be modules in npm that will allow you to `require 'old-require'` to
> replace the new require with the good ole'. gone a bit of efficiency, gone
> a bit of standardization.
>
> so what are the good, the bad and the ugly facts about require.extensions?
>
>
--
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nodejs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
