[annotator-dev] Switch to JavaScript?

[steph]

I've been very happy with using Annotator as opposed to maintaining a 
custom build JS solution, and I agree the relative barrier b/w 
JavaScript and CoffeeScript is much less compared to barriers in getting 
involved in other open source projects.

But I'm just being honest that it is a blocker for me. Everyone has 
different circumstances and availability, and for my personal 
circumstances, getting past this specific barrier is not something that 
I've made time for or expect to make time for. Perhaps that is a 
pessimistic/realistic outlook, but I have found other ways to contribute.

I think it's just fine if Annotator continues to be in CoffeeScript. In 
true consulting fashion, I find arguments to both sides. If continuing 
in CoffeeScript means weeding out those that don't have the motivation 
to get past the barrier (ie me), I think that's just fine :)

Steph




On 06/19/2014 12:06 PM, Kristof Csillag wrote:
> When considering billable time, consider this:
>
> Either you are contributing to an existing module / plugin / object /
> function / whatever,
> or you or building something new.
>
> If you are building something new, like a new Annotator plugin, you can
> already build in JS, so CS is not needed at all.
>
> If you are contributing to an existing module, then you have a working
> Coffee environment; you only have to copy the syntax you see all around
> you. (The semantics is JS.) So I would say that it means at most +20%
> time at first, which quickly (in 1-2 weeks) goes down to zero.
>
> Of course, YMMV.
>
>     Kristof
>
>
>
> On 2014-06-18 13:56, Steph Skardal wrote:
>> Removing CoffeeScript entirely would be appealing to me as a potential
>> contributor. While I agree it is not a difficult language to learn,
>> the reality of it is that my billable time using Annotator won't
>> support non-billable time learning CoffeeScript to contribute to the
>> core. I know my way around CoffeeScript a bit, but not enough to
>> contribute and write tests efficiently, so it is a barrier for me.
>>
>> That being said, I can see the advantages of CoffeeScript already
>> described.
>>
>> Steph
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/2014 5:02 AM, Gergely, Ujvari wrote:
>>> I think Coffeescript is not a difficult language to learn. It was quite
>>> easy for me to  learn it.
>>> It improves many cumbersome aspects of js.
>>> I think it'd be a real letdown to use js instead of coffee.
>>> And  anyone can write pure js plugins to annotator.
>>>
>>> Gergely
>>>
>>> 2014.06.18. 10:57 keltezéssel, Robert Casties írta:
>>>> 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
>>>> and you would have to invent your own Javascript patterns for things
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>      Robert
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> temperature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> annotator-dev mailing list
>>>>>> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> annotator-dev mailing list
>>>>> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> annotator-dev mailing list
>>> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> annotator-dev mailing list
>> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
> _______________________________________________
> annotator-dev mailing list
> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev