On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:02:21 -0200, Paul Stanton <p...@mapshed.com.au>
wrote:
ok, our usage of the term 'monkey-patch' is where the misunderstanding
is. I mean, patch. not monkey-patch, in your definition.
That's why I always told my students: use the right words, the right
names, the right terminologies all the times, because otherwise people
won't understand you. :)
Monkey-patching in JavaScript and other dynamic-typed languages has a very
specific definition: changing some function by overriding it through code
in runtime. The source code is *not* changed. Patching, in the source code
sense, is something completely different, because it doesn't occur in
runtime, being done on the source itself. What you're doing is patching,
but not monkey-patching at all.
According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_patch:
A monkey patch is a way to extend or modify the run-time code of dynamic
languages without altering the original source code. This process has also
been termed duck punching.[1]
Regarding the gains of using CoffeeScript: I've never used it, so I cannot
answer that.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
