casties at mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de
Wed Jun 18 08:57:55 UTC 2014
On 18.06.14 09:20, Kristof Csillag wrote:
> What do you mean by "switching"?
> 1. Deciding to accept new incoming JS code, alongside new incoming
> Coffee code?
> 2. Deciding that all new incoming code must be JS?
> 3. Removing all the Coffee, and replacing it all with JS? (Either by
> automatic compilation, or manually?)
> Anyway, I am not sure if it is much of a barrier.
> When I entered the project, making sense of the internals were
> *significantly* more difficult to me than making sense of Coffee, which
> was new to me at that time.
Same with me. Learning to use Coffee was a rather small hurdle (and it
makes writing good code easier) compared to setting up the build process
and understanding the moving parts of the code.
I think the build process does not become much simpler without coffee
Coffee does if you wanted to convert everything to plain JS.
But I don't write much code in Annotator-core so everything you prefer
would be fine with me.
> On 2014-06-18 05:37, Randall Leeds wrote:
>> Anyone opposed?
>> Might lower the tooling and learning barrier.
>> I've been a defender of it and invested some time in the tooling but
>> I'd be okay moving away from it.
>> No thought of timing here, re 2.0 or anything. Just taking the
>> annotator-dev mailing list
>> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
> annotator-dev mailing list
> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
Dr. Robert Casties -- Information Technology Group
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Boltzmannstr. 22, D-14195 Berlin
Tel: +49/30/22667-342 Fax: -299
More information about the annotator-dev