The problem with Coffeescript: debugging

[lucian303]

To keep it short, you can write your so called "elegant" coffeescript, but when it comes down to debugging the output it's going to be JS. JS _you_ didn't write.

So yeah, it's a sophomoric exercise that only adds complexity to building software. Obviously this is the #1 thing that should be avoided (unnecessary complexity) in all software. Adding more complexity is why developers _should_ get fired.

edit: Suggestions adding extra complexity to the development lifecycle do not make a case for coffeescript. They only make a case against it. That includes having to learn a useless language.

[amikazmi]

1. if you keep your methods small, and have tests, you rarely need a debugger.

2. the generated js isn't that complex and you can easily map it in your head- it's not like trying to "debug" asm generated from C.

3. you'll get debugging soon (as wmf said, source maps- now waiting for cs guys to support in chrome, Rubymine IDE supports in D1 2013)

4. productivity is important.

[lucian303 → amikazmi]

All of which add _unnecessary_ complexity and time to the development lifecycle. Don't tell me you don't need a debugger in JS no matter how small your methods are and how many tests you have. All code has bugs. Period. You are arguing against fact. That's fallacious.

[amikazmi → lucian303]

False dichotomy.

"All code has bugs" claim is true, but it doesn't mean you need debuggers in order to solve/fix the problems.

If your methods ARE small enough, and you have tests for OTHER cases, printing/console is actually faster (at least for me) than using a debugger. I have a JS debugger in firebug, and I rarely use it (for pure JS, not just CoffeeScript output).

[lucian303 → amikazmi]

That's your experience and anecdotal. Advocating against the use of a debugger when it's necessary (and it is necessary a lot especially with others' code) just shows you really do not understand program flow, let alone software development. I'm glad you only work on your own code and you should be too.

[amikazmi → lucian303]

In your experience, it's necessary with others' code. In my experience, it's rarely necessary.

As long as you're glad with your false assumptions, I have nothing more to add.

[lucian303 → amikazmi]

So your code has no bugs? That's a first.

[subsection1h]

lucian303, your comment history is littered with uninformative blather such as this submission. Since you oppose "extra complexity" so much, consider this: the process of finding actionable information at Hacker News would be less complex for everyone if you were to stop posting.

[lucian303 → subsection1h]

And the process for you to stop being such a trolling asshole ... well there is none. You're stuck being an asshole.

You may not think this is an important point, but that doesn't mean that people who actually understand software development do.

See, even those who use it can't actually make a real argument against this other than it was easy for them. Whatever that means ... https://tech.dropbox.com/?p=361

[plqa]

I have a feeling that you have not and do not work on anything big or important. It's highly likely that you're still in high school OR you are in some sort of college / University.

[adamnemecek]

...but...but no semicolons!

[lucian303 → adamnemecek]

... make it shite ... LMAO

[wmf]

Source maps.

[lucian303 → wmf]

Extra complexity.

[roopeshv]

stop using what you can't use.

[lucian303 → roopeshv]

I don't use Coffeescript