Jason (jcreed) wrote,

I find certain parts of the following article so baffling that it triggers some sort of Poe's law in my brain:
There are certainly practical arguments to be made against languages that have fairly shallow but not entirely trivial translations to javascript. I think the difficulty of debugging without specialized debugging tools for the source language is the best one. But exhibiting 9 narrow lines of source language program, and 30 wide, wide lines of javascript (claiming that what the Proper Design-Pattern-Using Programmer really *means* is the 30 lines) is not. I am a firm believer that design patterns that cannot otherwise be compressed into a libraries are a sign your programming language is missing a feature. Everything else in this rant sounds like someone arguing that languages like C will never catch on, because Real Programmers know how to do it in ASM.


Uh. I got to the end of the article and it seems to be making a case *for* coffeescript after all. Ok. whatever. That is a weird rhetorical technique, then.
Tags: programming

  • (no subject)

    Didn't sleep well. Long day of work. Dinner with akiva at hanamichi.

  • (no subject)

    K was going to do a thing for her dad's birthday, but scheduling kept slipping and slipping so I guess we're going to try doing it tomorrow instead.

  • (no subject)

    Had a pleasant lunch with paul and gabe back from working-at-facebook times. Discussed the important issues of the day, by which I mean video games…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded