Lessons From Porting To CoffeeScript

I recently set out to do a project in CoffeeScript (abbreviated CS). My aim was to build a Sudoku solver. One week and one JS prototype later, I realised that Sudoku were more interesting than I realised. I’ve recently ported the solver to CoffeeScript, and here’s what I’ve learned:

It’s easy

Getting up and running is very straightforward. Once you have the compiler, the entire language reference is a single web page. Many of its language features have been taken from Python or Ruby, so you can quickly grasp the key concepts. The result: you can achieve basic proficiency very quickly indeed.

CS even supports embedding JS directly in your code. You don’t need to port entire program at once, you can work function-by-function and test as you go.

If you’re ever uncertain about syntax, CS even ships with its own standalone REPL.

It’s readable

CoffeeScript is much more concise. The JS code was ~400 lines, whilst the CS version was ~300 lines. Keywords are more readable too – for example, the JS operator && becomes and.

CS allows you to escape boilerplate and ceremony. Rather than:

for (var i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {

you can simply use in in a way that JS won’t support until 1.6. If we’re lucky.

for element in arr

Virtually everything returns a value in CS. Want an array of 1s?

arr = for i in [0...arraySize]

This was a major benefit in my code.

No foot shooting

JS has a wide variety of gotchas that web developers need to learn. CS sidesteps many of these. == in CS compiles to ===, so type coercion can’t catch you out. Variables do not leak to the global object. CS even sidesteps the many gotchas of object literals:

# no issue with 'class' as a keyword interfering with key names
myObject = {school: "St Thomas", class: "Maths"}

# no issue with object literals at the top level (try this in firebug)
{x: 1, y:2}

It’s young and imperfect

IDE support is limited (even Emacs support could use polish). Rails offers CS support built-in these days, but many other toolchains don’t yet.

CS also has a few syntactic weirdnesses of its own. Operator precedence can be surprising, which is unfortunate for a language that makes brackets optional.

The following code:

if not 1 in [2, 3]

is equivalent to:

if (not 1) in [2, 3]

which can lead to some nasty bugs.

The CS range operators, .. and ..., are simply too similar and make off-by-one errors easier. It also has the unfortunate result that [x.y], [x..y] and [x...y] are all syntactically valid, visually similar but do different things.

It’s also tempting to go further with things that CS should do. I spend a lot of time chasing a bug of the form:

if foo.length < bar.length:

which should have been:

if foo.length < bar.baz.length:

CS largely does not change the semantics of the language. This makes compiled code simpler, but holds back some of the more interesting opportunities.

It won’t save you from learning JS

With a few (1, 2) notable exceptions, the utilities you will want to use are written in JS. CS developers still need to be comfortable in JS to dig into documentation, learn about the DOM API, and (more rarely) debug. This is rarely an issue in practice, since almost all CS developers have some JS background.

It gives you modern programming today

Many of the features CS offers today will seem familiar to anyone who has read the ECMAScript Harmony proposals. It’s all pretty incestuous. The wonderful thing about CS is that you can have this powerful, readable syntax today, on practically any browser.

That’s worth having, in my book.

Recent Posts

The Astounding Variety of Groovy Strings

Remacs Talk Transcript

Pattern Matching in Emacs Lisp

These Weeks in Remacs

This Week in Remacs