undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbilalhusain11y ago0 comments

I hope the respective developers are listening. It should be noted that most of these 'try X' editors are not marketed as a product, but I do agree that calling it 'professional' was mistake. The warts show up during heavy usage of a tool (the overflow example) and I was quick to reach conclusions based on the first impressions. But all the features like completion, line numbers, syntax highlighting do deserve respect (I couldn't find a better executed alternative!).

Also, confirming that I am on a Windows computer :)

0 comments

xixixao11y ago

The Try it for CoffeeScript was meant to be extremely simple, not to replace JSFiddle and such. The errors will be moved to the output area in next release. Someone might get around to implementing proper editor into it (say CodeMirror). That said, MS has people they pay for developing TypeScript, CoffeeScript is just of bunch of folks who enjoy working on the compiler and helping others. You certainly shouldn't expect the same level of secondary effort as in Dart or TypeScript - yet I think CoffeeScript is doing great on this front.

roryokane11y ago

I described some details that would help implement a rich code editor (like CodeMirror) in Try CoffeeScript in this issue:

“Use rich code editor in Try CoffeeScript on coffeescript.org” – https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/3076

I’m glad to hear that compile errors will finally be displayed in the output area in the next release (https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/pull/3425). If anyone feels like improving that interface even further, they could try implementing the mockup in this issue:

“Highlight code errors and move error message in Try CoffeeScript” – https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/3077

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse