December 19th, 2011

beartato phd

(no subject)

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.