I feel that it implies that it's an official project, but it's actually a re-implementation and separate project.
And if they're not backwards compatible it could lead to a ton of confusion and a fragmented language.
I think if you want your own project then you should at the very least get your own name.
That would be the fourth version of CoffeeScript. The 2nd version would be "CoffeeScript 2: Script Harder" which is much more awesome.
Since naming after desserts and alliterative animals has already been done, I wholeheartedly support action film naming conventions.
Is he nuts? The compiled output shouldn't be relying on an error-correction feature. Especially since it might break minifiers and validators.
But trying to use a "validator" that validates a languages other than the one you are writing is just plain insane.
I think that a lot of the confusion comes from taking the term "error" personally. Nobody wants to be told that their programming style relies on "error correction" to be parsed, but it's just an implementation detail of the parser, not some kind of qualitative statement about your programming skills. Changing the name does not change how the parser works, and does not make anyone involved a better or worse programmer.
: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST... (PDF) , section 7.9
: http://brendaneich.com/2012/04/the-infernal-semicolon/, specifically "The moral of this story: ASI is (formally speaking) a syntactic error correction procedure."
In my opinion it has only two big flaws that need to be targeted by new transpilers: 1) for --> each 2) parens free chainable syntax.
Anyway, I gather the OP is a coffeescript core contributor, so my default opinion is probably wrong in this case, hopefully.
Thanks Groupon and others for supporting this, I would agree with commenters that name is confusing.
How about multiple backend support? Perhaps then someone could add a dart or NaCl backend.
"Crowd fund us or we won't do it" sure is a lot better than "We won't do it".