CoffeeScript

[alyssais]

I used CoffeeScript when I was adding some JS to the site, but I'm thinking it might be a bit of a barrier to entry for people. Since we only have one line at the moment, I'd be happy to use standard JavaScript instead if it would help people contribute.

Any thoughts?

[groks]

Sounds like a good idea.

Also, SCSS. I think it's fine to use that, but it could do with a Makefile or something so that all someone else has to do is type 'make' and the css gets rebuilt.

[alyssais]

I've removed CoffeeScript with the latest commit. Would you be able to deal with the Makefile? I've never done that before.

[groks]

What commands are you running to generate the other assets (css, min.js etc.)?

[alyssais]

I'm actually not (I'm using CodeKit). I could probably work out the commands, though.

[groks]

Could use Less (http://lesscss.org/) instead of SASS, in client mode. I don't think performance matters, for this site.

[alyssais]

These are the commands I would use.

if [ -a js/scripts.js ]; then
  uglifyjs js/scripts.js -o js/scripts.min.js --compress --mangle
fi

if [ -a scss/style.scss ]; then
  compass compile . scss/style.scss
fi

[alyssais]

What would the motivation be for us using Less?

[groks]

Because Less can be run in client-side mode (because the compiler is written in javascript) - therefore: no one needs to remember to compile before pushing.

I guess it depends on how many features of compass are being used.

[alyssais]

I'd prefer to keep using Sass. There's no equivalent of @extend in Less as far as I know, and it's used pretty extensively.

[groks]

Apparently, Less does support extend: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15464982/does-less-have-an-extend-feature.

It doesn't matter to me either way, use whichever you prefer. I just wanted to point out that there might be a way to avoid relying on external tools for css, while you brought up javascript.

Maybe a small note in the README about how to generate the css would cover things.

[alyssais]

That would be better. My point wasn't that a reliance on external tools was a bad thing, it was the fact that CoffeeScript isn't that well known, whereas SCSS is.

[schwuk]

I'm a big fan of CoffeeScript and Less (especially as they can be used directly in the browser without a build process, but I wouldn't use that feature in production), but I'd argue against using CoffeeScript or Sass in this case - the site is nowhere near complex enough to require a complex build process, and reliance on CodeKit (although a nice tool in itself) is a barrier to entry for non-Mac people.

[alyssais]

There is no reliance on CodeKit. See the commands I posted earlier.

[schwuk]

...but until you posted the commands, there was :-) (unless the developer was already familiar with CoffeeScript and Sass).

[alyssais]

As of a few commits ago JavaScript is actually no longer needed, so I just went ahead and stripped it out completely.

[schwuk]

Closing as there's currently no custom JavaScript (or CoffeeScript) in the site.