The Little Book on CoffeeScript

http://arcturo.github.com/library/coffeescript/

by protez • 15 years ago

161 38 15 years ago

arcturo.github.com

latch2• 15 years ago

Excellent work. FWIW, from my experience with The Little MongoDB Book, people love epub format.

maccman2• 15 years ago

Any suggestions on how to go about converting it (Markdown) to epub?

latch2• 15 years ago

Well, I went from markdown to pdf using pandoc/latex/markdown2pdf and then I think I used calibre.

However, I just tried taking one of your html files and converting it directly to epub (again, using calibre, which is free)..and it did a pretty good job.

I think if you can merge the chapters together and spend a bit of time tweaking it, you'll end up with a nice ebook.

wavephorm2• 15 years ago

Why is this language continually hyped to no end on HN?

michaelchisari3• 15 years ago

Although it dignifies your question, I'd say it's because it's the first breath of fresh air in client-side development people have had in a long time. Having a real choice in that space is a big deal.

Do you have specific criticisms of CoffeeScript? That would probably have made for a more productive comment.

wavephorm2• 15 years ago

It just wreaks of fanboyism when every comment or question that doesn't give praise to coffeescript is downvoted.

InclinedPlane2• 15 years ago

Javascript is fundamentally an awesome language at its core, as powerful as lisp in many ways. But it's hampered by a few bugs and mis-features that were baked into the language definition early (due to high pressure to release the language early and marketing pressure to make the syntax a certain way, even if it didn't make sense). Coffeescript is a very successful attempt to remove a lot of that pain and let the underlying awesomeness of javascript shine through.

Considering that JS is one of the most ubiquitous and popular languages today this is kind of a big deal.

voidfiles• 15 years ago

I think it's because it delights two kinds of people. JavaScript lovers, because it make JavaScript beautiful, and JavaScript haters, because it makes JavaScript palatable.

barmstrong• 15 years ago

I love CoffeeScript. The only thing that seems unintuitive about it is how functions get defined, and perhaps the meaningful whitespace (no 'end' on blocks).

I've always wondered why they made coffee-script syntax so close to ruby without going all the way. "Write javascript in ruby" would have been a killer feature and tagline, but instead we're 80% of the way there with occasional expectations still being broken and new quirks to learn. Anyway...still a huge improvement overall so don't want to sound negative. Just something I was curious about.

michaelchisari3• 15 years ago

I don't think a direct translation of Ruby -> Javascript would have made much sense, though. It makes much more sense to custom mould a new language to the needs of Javascript, than to try and fit Ruby into a whole new context.

I started looking into making a parser that took CoffeeScript and parsed it into PHP, and the farther I got spec'ing things out, the less the CoffeeScript syntax made sense for the context of PHP. So it would make more sense to start new, and create a new syntax that fits better. I'm assuming the same process may have occurred for CoffeeScript.

Anyways, as someone who greatly prefers Python over Ruby, I love using whitespace for blocks.

fizx• 15 years ago

Ruby has a 6000 LOC yacc parser for the grammar. I would bet that Coffee's grammar is smaller, tighter, and less full of perlisms.

starwed4• 15 years ago

As someone who learned coffeescript last weekend, it took me literally minutes to figure out enough to translate some javascript I'd written. And I've never even used a significant-whitespace language before.

That someone who knows javascript can so trivially pick up coffeescript says a lot about why they chose the syntax they did.

riobard• 15 years ago

Perhaps it is also influenced by Python? Come on, not everyone on Earth loves Ruby's syntax. I was turned off by the endless 'end's.

endtime2• 15 years ago

>The only thing that seems unintuitive about it is how functions get defined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)#Notation

I think that's probably the source (perhaps indirect) of CS's function notation. Personally I think it's far more intuitive than JavaScript's, if you start out knowing neither language.

jashkenas• 15 years ago

Because there are already a ton of projects out there that attempt to implement Ruby in JavaScript. See the "Ruby" section on this page:

https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-lang...

The point of CoffeeScript is something quite different. It's an attempt to tidy up JS semantics, while finding a minimalist syntax to express the "good parts" of JavaScript. Any similarities to Ruby, Python, Haskell, Perl, Potion, etc. are hopefully only present in places where they make sense on the merits, and not just to be similar for familiarity's sake.

kevinpet3• 15 years ago

I was excited when I saw the title, disappointed when I started reading the book. I'm hoping someone with sufficient expertise can write a guide to coffeescript that doesn't defer to "just like javascript, except X". That is, something that talks about coffeescript, covering it from start to finish, without distracting with talk about javascript.

secoif2• 15 years ago

You can't talk about coffeescript without talking about JavaScript, and that's the whole point of coffeescript: "it's just JavaScript". You need to know both languages to use it effectively.

Volpe• 15 years ago

I don agree with that. Sure knowing JavaScript is helpful in debugging. But you can be very effective with coffeescript without knowing too much about JavaScript.

kevinpet3• 15 years ago

You can't talk about javascript without talking about the execution environment, object system, and so on, which happens to be shared with javascript, but there is no more reason to discuss javascript when talking about coffeescript than to talk about the assembly-like output of javap when talking about java.

Coffeescript has a different syntax than javascript, and it is totally pointless to say "you don't need to type 'var'". It would be better to talk about how scoping works in coffescript.

It happens that everything that's been written about coffeescript so far is about convincing javascript users to switch or helping javascript users to switch. That's not the only way.

wallfly• 15 years ago

"The Little Book.." was the first instructional text I read on CoffeeScript, i.e. beyond Coffee's home page hosted on GitHub.

I followed up with the following free e-book, which I highly recommend:

Smooth CoffeeScript

http://autotelicum.github.com/Smooth-CoffeeScript/

js4all• 15 years ago

Very nice. That book seems to be complete on every aspect of CoffeeScript.

exogen• 15 years ago

I realize the situation may have been different when the Applications chapter was written, but I would be careful of the subtle jQuery.tmpl "endorsement" in the "JavaScript templates" section.

jQuery.tmpl is unmaintained, slow, and very broken. It may be worth changing the example.

maccman2• 15 years ago

Yes, you might be right there. Eco would probably be a better choice (CoffeeScript syntax). I'll see if I can find time to change it.

codabrink• 15 years ago

Is there a good way to compile this into an ebook? I'd love to have this on my kindle.

mhitza• 15 years ago

Here's my PDF conversion of the book http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6746847/little-coffee.pdf

The links point to URL's though.

The Little Book on CoffeeScript

Related Stories