>> it doesn't turn out to be terribly useful in the end
True, I'd chose CoffeeScript over Opal.
>> Give it a try, perhaps.
Oh, I dig it, especially the fat arrow.
>> It's critical not to use "def" and "do" when your functions are first-class values that can be passed as arguments, or assigned to variables.
Still, I find "def" to be more `readable` than arrow symbols. I'm not sure how JavaScript's first class status for functions would deter a keyword containing letters. Considering JavaScript itself uses function as its.
>> The reason it's an arrow is because in any decent function, the input determines the output, eg. input points to output. And therefore, the CoffeeScript syntax: (input) -> output
That definitely makes logical sense. Still, I feel the readability might be increased by using words, which the mind is more attuned to quickly applying meaning to.
True, I'd chose CoffeeScript over Opal.
>> Give it a try, perhaps.
Oh, I dig it, especially the fat arrow.
>> It's critical not to use "def" and "do" when your functions are first-class values that can be passed as arguments, or assigned to variables.
Still, I find "def" to be more `readable` than arrow symbols. I'm not sure how JavaScript's first class status for functions would deter a keyword containing letters. Considering JavaScript itself uses function as its.
>> The reason it's an arrow is because in any decent function, the input determines the output, eg. input points to output. And therefore, the CoffeeScript syntax: (input) -> output
That definitely makes logical sense. Still, I feel the readability might be increased by using words, which the mind is more attuned to quickly applying meaning to.
Edit: Great job, on CoffeeScript, regardless!