CS2 Discussion: Question: Who has time to code?

[GeoffreyBooth]

The ambitions of this project must be weighed against our resources, namely, how many hours people have to commit to development. If we have lots of people with lots of time, the sky’s the limit: we can start with either compiler or even create a new one, and implement every possible feature. If our resources are just me, well, we’ll hopefully get modules and maybe classes in the current compiler, and I don’t know how much more I’ll have time for. Hopefully we have more than just me, and we can not only add a few missing ESNext features to CoffeeScript but also start to modernize its output and maybe improve its internals.

If you have time to work on the CoffeeScript compiler in the next few weeks or months, please comment below with what kind of commitment you can make (e.g. x hours per week, etc.). Also please note if you have any prior experience with the CoffeeScript compiler or its derivatives (Redux, decaffeinate).

[mrmowgli]

I have to say, I would love to help but I'm worried the ramp up time for just the parsers might be too much. I've never worked on any of the compilers, although I am interested. I imagine this could be a little rough since the documentation and language status information isn't really there.

[aurium]

I believe most people don't have enough time for hard work, but if we split the project in small well defined pieces with low coupling, we all could do i great.

I don't have enough knowledge in language compilation/translation, but i can work on something, sure.

[carlsmith]

I have some time. I'm working on my mum's Rotary Club website this week, and have two projects already, so I don't want to commit to anything major, but I generally have time to work on this, and could put in 5-15 hours a week or something.

I'd be up for writing a parser. Vaughan Pratt is a genius, and his TDOP parsing makes it easy to do, but so few people get it that it makes the people that do know the algorithm look smarter than they are. It's actually easy to understand. What puts me off, is all the preprocessing to insert implicit braces and so on. If we had a way of inserting all the implicit brackets and braces into CoffeeScript source (maybe reuse code from Official or Redux), I'd be happy to take it from there, and generate a Babel AST. I'm confident I could do that. It's a lot of work though, if it's all on a prayer. It's tempting, but daunting.

Hmm.

[lydell]

and generate a Babel AST

@carlsmith Doesn't it make more sense to write a parser that outputs a CoffeeScript AST, and then write a compiler that takes CoffeeScript AST as input and outputs a JavaScript AST (such as the Babel AST), and then feed that JavaScript AST to a JavaScript code generator (like Babel). (This is how Redux works.)

[JimPanic]

At the moment I'm quite full with an upcoming move (still searching…blergh) and some other private things. But if there is something specific to do that doesn't require days of studying beforehand (refactoring for example), I'm happy to lend a hand and invest a few hours per week. Sometimes maybe even more when I got my head free from other stuff. Right now I'm also busy getting to know a wide variety of systems at my new job and getting up to speed with everything.

I still hope we can assemble a group of people with special interest in a few areas of the compiler, insight and a little bit of time to actually influence the development. Because I don't think anyone participating so far is a lone wolf. :)

[carlsmith]

@lydell - yep, on reflection, you're right. I was thinking to try and do tokens -> JS AST in a single pass for efficiency, but it might get messy in places, and having a source -> tokens -> CS AST -> Babel AST -> Babel pipeline would give users access to a proper CS AST, which some are going to want.

[carlsmith]

@JimPanic - reckon we're all just glad to know you're on board chap. Good luck at your new place.

[rdeforest]

I'm interested in participating in this... thing? And I'd like to campaign a bit.

Caveat: I've been drinking and I Have Opinions (tm)

"Who actually has time to code?"

The ambitions of this project must be weighed against our resources, namely, how many hours people have to commit to development.

Against what clock? What is the bar or threshold here? What is "enough?" What is the opportunity cost at risk? If by some fluke the answer to the question is "nobody" (and who would post that?) what should we be doing instead and why?

What's the problem here? Even if "nobody has time", why make an issue of it? If nobody has time, they won't participate in the discussion of #27, and if they DO have time (as I am devoting now), they will waste it on the question which is answered in the negative by the fact that they posted on this issue at all.

If we all (whoever is reading this now or in the future) produce a CS6, CS2, CS 1.11 or CS 1.10.1, issue #27 will not have helped us do so, and if we don't produce anything, issue #27 might be a reason why.

It feels to me like @GeoffreyBooth is putting all potential collaborators on the spot and demanding a commitment form them when no such commitment is required, now or ever.

Discouraging

I came to this issue from #4 where @GeoffreyBooth commented after a post of mine with

This is only relevant if we have people willing to devote serious time to this project. See #27

So someone (me) who had time to post was essentially told not to bother because "we" might not "have" people "willing" to "devote" time to this project.

All or Nothing != progress

We don't have to make The Next CoffeeScript in one go. On the contrary, we don't have to do anything. We get to make incremental improvements either by having our changes accepted upstream, or by offering an alternative which is clearly superior in some way. It doesn't have to be a complete solution. We could solve any single problem identified by this project and that would be progress. That is how most progress happens. "Rome wasn't built in a day", and Apollo 11 wasn't the first flight of the Apollo program. For that matter, the Apollo program was based on the work in the Gemini program as well as all the work preceding it including Newton's refinement of our understandings of math and physics, and innumerable contributions before.

Conclusion

What is the success condition of this issue? What would resolve it? A list of people "devoted" to the CS2/CS6/CSnext "cause"? This isn't a religion, it's something people clearly want to collaborate on.

Therefore, I propose resolving this issue as irrelevant. If we have time to code, we'll code. If not, this issue won't help anyway.

[GeoffreyBooth]

@rdeforest the point of this issue was to gauge interest and to start to assemble a team. It matters whether the team has a lot of time to devote or a little, because that is the primary factor driving the first major technical decision: whether to improve the existing compiler or create a new one. I for one don't want to commit to building a new compiler, even one built from Redux, if we can't get it at least as good as the current compiler within six months. That's because for me the compiler is a solution to a problem—arresting the decline of CoffeeScript—and not an end in itself.

[DomVinyard]

Agreed, no need to take offence, dude was just trying to whip up a bit of organisational spirit in the group. A little motivation sometimes goes a long way.

On topic, I am very interested in this language, a lover of this language but I know nothing of language design. I have begun to educate myself and hopefully be able to contribute at a later stage.

[rdeforest]

I apologize. I shouldn't post about things I care about while intoxicated.

However, I stand by my original objection. I do not see value in keeping issue #27 open. I will support this further now by responding point-by-point to the two responses above.

the point of this issue was to gauge interest

• It doesn't matter how much or little interest there is because there is no deadline. If there is one person willing to put any time in, that's enough. Enough for what? For them.
• Those who are curious about interest level can gauge it by participation.

to assemble a team

There's already issue #3 for that. Also, there's already a team forming. When it gets too big to continue organically that will be the time to add structure. Until then, the work is more important.

It matters whether the team has a lot of time to devote or a little, because that is the primary factor driving the first major technical decision: whether to improve the existing compiler or create a new one.

B does not follow from A. The merits of a decision between improve CS, improve CSR, start from scratch and two or more of these options is not functionally impacted by how interested people are. One person could pursue all three or 100 people could focus on just one. The decision will be made by the people who actually perform the work.

I for one don't want to commit to building a new compiler, even one built from Redux, if we can't get it at least as good as the current compiler within six months. That's because for me the compiler is a solution to a problem—arresting the decline of CoffeeScript—and not an end in itself.

• Why is it important to you that you or anyone else make some kind of commitment to this work? Did Jeremy "commit" to producing 1.10.0 when he started back in 2009? If so, that was nice of him, but there are many highly successful open source projects contributed by people who never make a formal committment of any kind. They may even come and go as their lives change without dramatically impacting the project.
• What's so special about six months? I apologize in advance if you have a terminal illness which lends urgency to this work that I am not aware of. But in any case, why spend more time than necessary, regardless of the resources available? If you would pick option 'foo' if you were the only developer because you could get it done in six months, why not also pick option 'foo' if there are 100 of us working 80 hour weeks in perfect harmony? Or, if the superior choice would "take to long", wouldn't pursuing the inferior choice also be a waste?

Agreed, no need to take offence,

Fair point and I do regret that the tone of my posts is unpleasant.

dude was just trying to whip up a bit of organisational spirit in the group.

The project already has plenty of spirit and I object to his methods.

Some examples:

quote	better choice
Who actually has time	What's your ideal form of participation in this project?
The ambitions of this project must be weighed against our resources	(not true, don't say it at all)
If our resources are just me, well, we’ll hopefully get modules and maybe classes in the current compiler, ...	I'm interested in working on modules and classes
please comment below with what kind of commitment you can make (e.g. x hours per week, etc.)	(not needed, leave it out)
please note if you have any prior experience	If you like, let us know what strengths you can bring and what you'd like to learn from the project.

And now I'm going to lead by example by ignoring the rest of this thread and focusing on the Pratt parsing thing carlsmith linked to so I can contribute something.

[carlsmith]

@rdeforest - You seem to have misunderstood the situation. CoffeeScript is in decline. Adoption has been falling for a while, and is likely to lead to the death of CoffeeScript if not arrested soon. The whole point of this community is to figure out the best way to turn the decline around, and then do it.

There is no exact deadline, but there is urgency. The longer it takes, the less likely it is to work. We don't want to aim too high and fail, nor aim too low and miss an opportunity to do more. The only resource we need to try and quantify is labour, so it made perfect sense when I saw @GeoffreyBooth was trying to establish how much time people have to give.

You've obviously not followed this conversation very closely, so just take it from someone who has: No one has any problem with what @GeoffreyBooth has done here, and to be totally honest, no one really cares about the points you made either. On the other hand, we'd be grateful for your help, so let's just forget this misunderstanding, and get back to the problem at hand.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you seem like someone who'll just take it on the chin, so welcome aboard, and thanks for pitching in. Maybe just keep your drinking and your criticism of other people in open source separate going forward ;)

[rattrayalex]

And now I'm going to lead by example by ignoring the rest of this thread and focusing on the Pratt parsing thing carlsmith linked to so I can contribute something.

Thank you.

@GeoffreyBooth , your question and comments seemed very reasonable to me. I fully support gauging interest in contributions from the community.