I keep running into Senior JS positions where they want CoffeeScript. The reason I don't use CoffeeScript is that my first impression of it was that it puts limitations on JS OOP features that I find valuable. I've seen claims that the two can inter-mix freely but that sounds dubious to me. Should I even bother applying to these positions if CoffeeScript-only is a dealbreaker for me?
4
-
If I have to base this on personal and team experience and sum it with a short answer - very, it's not a trivial overhead to work with two languages at once.– Benjamin GruenbaumCommented Nov 25, 2013 at 22:20
-
1!@#$ing fad-tech is the worst.– Erik ReppenCommented Nov 25, 2013 at 22:22
-
1What you need, ironically, is something that converts from JS to CoffeeScript.– Dan1701Commented Nov 25, 2013 at 22:29
-
Having worked with Coffeescript and JavaScript together in the same project recently myself, I have to say that from the technical perspective, it's inconvenient but not difficult. So long as your team agrees on what needs to be what and where, it's really not that bad.– greyfadeCommented Nov 26, 2013 at 6:16
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
How challenging technically is it to mix them? Or how challenging from a process and teamwork perspective?
I get the feeling you're asking about the former, but when it comes to jobs which advertise that they want CoffeeScript experience, it's more likely to be the latter that is relevant.
And I can tell you right now, if my workplace currently uses "language X", and we advertise for developers who know "language X", we might hire someone who knows "language Y" and is keen and willing to learn X. But we won't hire someone who knows "language Y" and wants to come in and use "language Y", suggesting that the code all our other developers write should be able to inter-mix with it.
answered Nov 26, 2013 at 5:42
-
I meant teamwork. I've now read up on it enough I'll take that to be correct. Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 6:01
Above sarcasm not withstanding, my answer to your question would be "yes."
Assuming that the position is otherwise something that would be a good fit, it would be a shame to miss out on an opportunity solely due to a language flavor that may or may not be in widespread use in a few years. In addition, if your OOP concerns are genuine, it would be well worth bringing this up in an interview.
-
I can suck it up and learn it if I have to. It's just annoying to have to learn a variant implementation of something I take pride in knowing a lot about and tolerate some obnoxious design tweaks like descending scope inheritance for the sake of syntax sugar and auto-"correction" of features just because Crockford put them in a list of "bad parts." Also, the sarcasm was funny. Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 5:01
-
Ah, I remembered my chief grumpy. No named functions. That was when I crumpled the idea up and tossed it over my shoulder. Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 5:07