

CoffeeScript 1.1.0 released - TrevorBurnham
http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#change_log

======
jashkenas
If you're (re-)installing it with the newly launched npm 1.0, remember to use
the -g flag to make the "coffee" command available systemwide.

~~~
cageface
Thanks. It would be nice if this were a little better documented. I fished
around for a fix for my missing coffee command for a while.

~~~
tuxychandru
Global and local installations are documented here.

[http://blog.nodejs.org/2011/03/23/npm-1-0-global-vs-local-
in...](http://blog.nodejs.org/2011/03/23/npm-1-0-global-vs-local-
installation/)

------
rdtsc
Features summary (others seem like bug fixes):

* Output in the REPL is now colorized, like Node's is.

* All text/coffeescript tags should now execute in the order they're included.

* Function calls can be used as default values for parameters.

* Splatted parameters are declared local to the function.

~~~
power78
I'm confused. Is javascript really that hard to use that we need CoffeeScript?
Why was CS even created?

~~~
swaits
Because someone wanted to? Folks are using it. Isn't that enough for you? On
top of that, it's quite a nice little language. Comprehensions are very
convenient along with regular iteration. And you get most of the jslint
passing stuff for free. Plus, if you don't like it, don't use it.

~~~
power78
Sorry if I came off as being rude, it was not my intention. I was merely
asking questions, but I guess it seemed harsh.

~~~
swaits
I suggest you play with it a bit. It really is a "nicer javascript". The only
thing it's missing is support, primarily in the form of debugging tools. But
that's coming.

------
TrevorBurnham
The previous version was 1.0.1. Mostly minor changes; nothing likely to break
existing code. The REPL is dramatically improved.

~~~
endtime
Trevor (or someone else), could you explain this note?

>Function calls can be used as default values for parameters.

What can I do in 1.1.0 that I couldn't do in 1.0.1? In 1.0.1, I just did the
following:

    
    
        coffee> x = 0
        0
        coffee> f = (g=(do -> x++), h=(do -> x++)) -> [g, h]
        # (compiled JS)
        coffee> f()
        0,1

~~~
jckarter
jashkenas (CoffeeScript author) replied to you, but for some reason he's
deadbanned:

> Thanks for mentioning it -- the fix was actually to correct a regression
> from a previous commit, not a true bugfix versus 1.0.1. I've removed that
> line from the changelog.

~~~
veidr
I (now) know that Red Dead was banned in the UAE, and pictures of the US
military dead are banned by the Pentagon, but what is 'deadbanned' in this
context?

~~~
jckarter
If you're banned here, you aren't locked out of the site or prevented from
posting. Your posts are just marked so that only you (and other users who have
chosen "show dead comments" in their preferences) can see them, and there's no
indication that you've been blacklisted. It's terrible.

------
edw
I've looked into CoffeeScript, and while I really like the sentiment—routing
around JavaScript's warts—I fundamentally disagree with the technique employed
to achieve the goal.

What the world needs is _less_ syntax, not more. Perl, Ruby, and Haskell—the
inspirations for CoffeeScript, as near as I can tell—are, as a recently-linked
entry called Perl, programming languages that you have to constantly use to
keep your programming skills.

For all its problems, as long as you can remember to use === and friends
instead of ==, JavaScript's syntax is relatively obvious, if unweildly, to
anyone who grew up in a C dominated world.

Fargo, the recently-linked Scheme in JavaScript, is something I an get behind
personally, though sadly Clojure is becoming the default Lisp my mind thinks
in.

We need to declare a moratorium on new syntax. With Lisp, C, Python, and a
couple other languages (maybe), we have all the syntax we need. Novelty is not
innovation. New is not better.

We live in a world where utility players, i.e. everyone in a startup, already
have to think in terms of too many different languages.

~~~
Cushman
We all agree that some syntaxes are better than others. So you're willing to
settle for JavaScript; that's cool, CoffeeScript is 100% compatible. (More
than, if you consider that even bad CS compiles to good JS.)

But complaining about novelty reeks of telling us kids to get off your lawn.
Some syntaxes _are_ better than others. We haven't found the best one.
Innovation is still possible. Hackers innovate. Get used to it.

~~~
thesz
Your comment finally made me to acquaint myself with the precise meaning of
word "innovation".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation>

I think that hackers invent, not innovate. Innovation is too risky to be taken
by one or even little group. It is something between an act of changing values
(or axioms) of system and the process of that system change.

I also think that innovation is too pompous term in the discussion of
programming languages syntax.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention>

Invention is much lesser term and much more nimble. And it could provoke
innovation, of course. But for innovation we need semantics more than syntax,
I think.

------
MatthewPhillips
I'm starting to really dig coffeescript. Using it in a new project and can see
what people are raving about.

I wish there were better examples of creating cakefiles though. Little
documentation on this. I think it assumes that everyone has a ruby background.
I'd like a cakefile with a task to compile all of my .coffee files. Seems like
that should be easy, but I don't see an example of how to do it.

~~~
geraldalewis
Did you see the documentation in the wiki? I ask because it took me a while to
find it initially, and even then, re-locating it was sometimes difficult:
[https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-
script/wiki/%5BHowTo%5D-...](https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-
script/wiki/%5BHowTo%5D-Compiling-and-Setting-Up-Build-Tools)

------
Andrex
Will any of the browser makers implement implicit text/coffeescript support?
That'd be neat.

~~~
TrevorBurnham
Firefox is definitely going to have CoffeeScript debugging support in the
future, though it's not yet clear exactly what form that'll take.

~~~
rubergly
Is this speculation or confirmed?

~~~
TrevorBurnham
As Jeremy says, it's an active ticket, and Brendan Eich himself has assured me
that he's committed to it.

