On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:02 AM, jbondc at openmv.com <jbondc at openmv.com> wrote:
> I’ve been reading recently the module discussions and one particular concept
> troubled me.
>
> I don’t understand the motivation behind an on-the-fly ‘translate’ loader
> hook that would compile CoffeeScript into JavaScript.
>
> Would every browser have to include a CoffeeScript compiler? Which version?
>
> If just seems like the only result would be more ‘web fragmentation’ by
> having browsers with different EcmaScript implementations and different
> compilers/translators of many different  languages? How is that going to
> work out?
>
> While I understand the benefits in theory, in practice I get the
> overwhelming impression that an on-the-fly 'translate' concept is a great
> way to break the web, not make it any better.
>
> Am I missing something, what problem does it solve?

Without reading the module spec to make sure of this, I'm nearly
certain that the 'translate' hook is for authors to supply *their own*
translation script.  There won't be any built-in ones.

~TJ

Without reading the module spec to make sure of this, I'm nearly
certain that the `translate` hook is for authors to supply *their own*
translation script.  There won't be any built-in ones.