> It was a major factor, yes, but claiming this purely as an accomplishment of Ruby is silly.
A major factor in popularizing it, as I claimed. Personally, I had never heard of it before DHH's 2006 RailsConf keynote. Could you point me to another web framework that had implemented it before 2006?
> Some of the syntax was influenced by CoffeeScript (nobody doubts that -- in fact, TC39 members have explicitly referenced it on more than one occasion) but the features are neither novel nor unique to Ruby.
Again, CoffeeScript was popularized by the Ruby community, as uptake increased greatly when it became a default in Rails. The syntax was heavily influenced by Ruby, which then found its way into ES.next.
> Front-end build tools
The Rails asset pipeline was actually listed as the inspiration for Brunch, the closest you can get to replicating its functionality in JavaScript. This went a long way towards popularizing the notion.
> I agree that CoffeeScript is the first one that gained major traction in the startup scene
> although most teams seem to have realised that the drawbacks aren't really worth it (not just the transpilation...
Yes, and CoffeeScript first gained traction within Rails. You also seem to be discounting the obvious popularity of ES.next transpilers.
> The Ruby community is very vocal and self-important but it's neither as uniquely innovative nor as much of an influence as its members like to make it out to be. If PHP is the kindergarden of programming languages, Ruby is the angsty teenager complaining about how nobody understands them and writing blog posts about their deep insights gained from flipping through Atlas Shrugged.
> The syntax was heavily influenced by Ruby, which then found its way into ES.next.
I pointed out the major syntax additions of ES6 and to what extent they are based on Ruby or not.
> You also seem to be discounting the obvious popularity of ES.next transpilers.
I'm not. Babel and other "ES.next" transpilers are drastically different in spirit from CoffeeScript. With some exceptions (e.g. JSX and Flow type annotations) most of the syntax it adds to JS are either already part of the language and just not widely supported (i.e. ES2015) or experimental proposals for new language features intended to eventually land in a future JS spec.
CoffeeScript doesn't work because it requires you to learn a new language on top of JS. ES.next works because it's bleeding-edge JS (plus some speculative additions). The code you write for Babel today will likely run without transpilation in a JS environment a year or two from now.
This is a general trend in web technologies. CSS pre-compilers like Sass are being replaced or enriched by CSS "post-compilers" like postCSS (that consume vanilla bleeding edge CSS and spit out CSS that works today). JS transpiler languages like CoffeeScript are being replaced by ES2015 (and speculative ES.next) with compilers that translate the code to JS that works today (or yesterday, even -- Babel generally works fine with IE8/ES3 if you use the necessary shims and shams).
Your point is that Ruby's role to all of the developments you mention is essential and unique. I'm arguing it's not. By far.
The only remarkably unique thing about the Ruby community I keep noticing as an outside its rise and fall of the Brogrammer culture and the aftershock we're still experiencing to this day. But even that, I think, would have happened even if Ruby never existed.
> CoffeeScript doesn't work because it requires you to learn a new language on top of JS.
The folks that have been quietly productive with CoffeeScript for years, and have and continue to make millions of dollars because of it, would likely disagree with you on that point.
> Your point is that Ruby's role to all of the developments you mention is essential and unique. I'm arguing it's not. By far.
> The only remarkably unique thing about the Ruby community I keep noticing as an outside its rise and fall of the Brogrammer culture and the aftershock we're still experiencing to this day. But even that, I think, would have happened even if Ruby never existed.
Well, you've failed to sway me on that (by far), and the clear chip on your shoulder you have regarding the Ruby community as a whole leads me to believe your vociferous arguments to the contrary might be motivated by something other than your desire to spread the truth.
A major factor in popularizing it, as I claimed. Personally, I had never heard of it before DHH's 2006 RailsConf keynote. Could you point me to another web framework that had implemented it before 2006?
> Some of the syntax was influenced by CoffeeScript (nobody doubts that -- in fact, TC39 members have explicitly referenced it on more than one occasion) but the features are neither novel nor unique to Ruby.
Again, CoffeeScript was popularized by the Ruby community, as uptake increased greatly when it became a default in Rails. The syntax was heavily influenced by Ruby, which then found its way into ES.next.
> Front-end build tools
The Rails asset pipeline was actually listed as the inspiration for Brunch, the closest you can get to replicating its functionality in JavaScript. This went a long way towards popularizing the notion.
> I agree that CoffeeScript is the first one that gained major traction in the startup scene > although most teams seem to have realised that the drawbacks aren't really worth it (not just the transpilation...
Yes, and CoffeeScript first gained traction within Rails. You also seem to be discounting the obvious popularity of ES.next transpilers.
> The Ruby community is very vocal and self-important but it's neither as uniquely innovative nor as much of an influence as its members like to make it out to be. If PHP is the kindergarden of programming languages, Ruby is the angsty teenager complaining about how nobody understands them and writing blog posts about their deep insights gained from flipping through Atlas Shrugged.
This is rude, untrue, and unhelpful. Be civil. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html