"... but when it is JavaScript that will be run by the browser then JavaScript is what you should be writing."

So by that logic, one shouldn't be writing C# that targets the CLR either, but should rather be coding in MSIL directly. Mmm, no thanks!

Come on, we all know that isn't a logical equality.

Once the debugging tools are able to keep everything abstracted then you no longer need to dig down. Example is of course writing assembly.

Yeah there's no logical equality to machine code and C++ but still people use debuggers. I don't think this is something that cannot be solved.

But JavaScript is not (another daft meme) "the assembler of the web" as it is itself interpreted (or what have you) into byte code for execution.

The point is that one should limit the level of abstraction to one which sits in that comfort zone between code that is sensible to humans and code that is sensible to the machine running it and (perhaps more importantly) the available dev/debug tools.

No, one should limit the level of abstraction to the fastest one that is reliable enough to get the job done. There's nothing intrinsic about high abstraction layers that say they must suck for debugging what you need debugged. It just depends on what you need to do with it. If it gets your job done faster and it's reliable enough for your job, then why not? That's why higher abstractions are created in the first place.

In short, you can't instantly rule out this compiler without knowing exactly what you'd want to do with it. And exactly how good it would be at that specific problem.

Yes no limits to abstractions always works perfectly..

Check out this stack trace:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/os-ecspy1/sta...

Now imagine that across three different languages.

Java has been said to be a DSL to convert XML configuration into stack traces. But what does this have to do with compiling C# to Javascript?

The abstraction is too deep. The stack trace above is an example of what too deep abstractions do to those who have to use them.

I don't agree that JavaScript being good enough for one person makes it good enough for everyone.

I don't agree that limitations should be placed on abstractions; I have no clue what's happening at the CPU level when a line of JavaScript or MSIL or bla bla executes. I don't need to know what's happening at all the layers of abstraction beneath the one I'm working on, and that helps me be productive.

There might be a pragmatic argument against using compile-to-JS languages _right now_, but with things like Google Chrome's Source Maps, this is a problem that is being solved if it hasn't been already.

Thanks for the comment. Before reading it, I admit to being lured into thinking the code in TFA was there to clean up after Backbone. Sneaky bit of writing...

Octopus is Paul's yacht: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(yacht)

One of his yachts.

Man, whenever I see Paul Allen whining about Gates or Ballmer, I think, it sure is curious way to screw someone over: turning them into a billionaire.

Does Paul Allen actually whine, or is it just that other people whine on his behalf? All the quotes I've read from him have been classy, or at least reserved.

"yacht"

The artwork in Braid is amazing. I like how the article shows Braid's graphical roots and how it has evolved from there. Great insight into the process.

David Hellman (the graphic designer behind Braid) has more Art of Braid articles on his blog at http://www.davidhellman.net/blog/category/art-of-braid/

> Forms are tabular data -- headers on side, data on the other.

For very simple form designs, sure. But that idea breaks down when you have a more sophisticated form and need to consider horizontal "flow" between fields.

Tables are hammers, but not all forms are nails.