If you automate it and it's part of your deployment pipeline, you'd hardly notice it's there. We use both SCSS and CS via Rails and it's a breeze. The occasional times when I don't understand why something is not working I go to the coffeescript website and read the transpiled code and it's usually obvious what's going on.
yes, i have dependencies that use both scss and coffeescript, so it's part of the deployment pipeline. i just don't like using them much myself =P
> it's a lot more cognitive overhead for what amounts to a little syntactic sugar.
This isn't really accurate with respect to meta languages like SCSS that add new features not present in the underlying language, like variables.
You really are missing out on a lot by not using the meta languages.
yes, variables are nice. hopefully the glacially slow integration of them into css proper (css custom properties) will arrive soon: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/--*
Re:Announcing CoffeeScript 2
by molszanski on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @02:14AM
(#15282188)
> the idea of compiling, transpiling or any other kind of piling of javascript just rubbed me the wrong way.
Well, this is how a lot of JS (if not most) is done today anyway.
i understand the problems these tools are trying to solve, but i don't like that you have to learn two (or more) grammars and syntaxes, and the quirky interactions between them, to get those benefits (because you can't debug one without debugging the other). it's a lot more cognitive overhead for what amounts to a little syntactic sugar.
standard es-whatever javascript needs to be "good enough", and, despite my disdain for using coffeescript, the improvements that coffeescript induced in javascript are heartily welcomed.