I'm going to just always flag CoffeeScript libraries that get posted with a .js extention. It is too much effort to put into looking at something only to find out it's not what you thought it was. I don't look at Clojure or Rails posts because I am not interested in them, but somehow I just can't avoid CoffeeScript. So I'm flagging.
Your project is interesting, and you put a great deal of work into it and it is pretty much amazing. I generally don't care about what language an app I use was written in. What has gotten under my skin is the naming of things that are not JavaScript yet still get a .js extension.
I'm actually sorry that all of your hard work is buried under a discussion about the .js extension. I just felt the need to vent as it keeps happening. Your demo is very impressive.
Thank you.
Chocolate is the project name, but I had to add something at the end to create a web site and a visible github project.
So js was the shortest and closest meaningfull suffix that came to my mind.
In this case it would have sounded way cool. But I would append js to any library developed in CoffeeScript simply because it's the target of compilation, and usable by any and all JavaScript developers. This isn't a library, but if it were it would have to consider that it would see far more people using it in their JS applications than in CoffeeScript ones, because it doesn't really matter. And calling it "js" doesn't alienate CoffeeScript devs, since they're fully aware of the interop, while calling it .coffee might keep away many js devs who don't know what CoffeeScript is about or who don't really know the JS ecosystem too well (which is all too common in JavaScript, being the necessity it is.)
You are right. However Javascript is apparent and supported in the Ide and as I use Coffeescript an Javascript as a pair of programming languages, I called it Chocolate.js
I would probably dislike CoffeeScript a lot less if I didn't keep running into CoffeeScript examples on *.js libraries. CoffeeScript has made things worse for JavaScript developers, not better, because it's everywhere now and I have even seen libraries written in JavaScript provide only CoffeeScript examples!
Why can't they just be separate languages? Stop mixing them up. You don't see Dart and JavaScript getting mixed up.
Because they're not separate languages. CoffeeScript and JavaScript share semantics, making them trivially interoperable (unlike, for example, Dart).
Whether or not a library happens to be written in CoffeeScript is immaterial to your use of it as a JavaScript developer. Now, if the docs aren't good enough because they don't cater to your preferred language reading choices, then that's a legit beef, and it's a documentation deficiency that should be fixed. No need for knee-jerk "dislike".
CoffeeScript is like a chameleon, conveniently a language when it serves its proponents in an argument and not when it doesn't.
I propose that CoffeeScript is a language, complete and separate from JavaScript and that people start treating it as such so people who prefer readability over less typing don't have to deal with it if they don't want to.
Yup, a short screencast or some screenshots would be great. Seeing as Windows isn't a supported platform (yet?), I can't try it out right now without rebooting and I could use some more convincing...
