Here’s the Deal

LiveScript vs Opa

17 16

2 1

When comparing LiveScript vs Opa, the Slant community recommends LiveScript for most people. In the question“What are the best languages that compile to JavaScript? ” LiveScript is ranked 27th while Opa is ranked 30th. The most important reason people chose LiveScript is:

LiveScript has terse syntax for common functional operations like map, and ships with a library, prelude.ls, with many of the functions most commonly used by functional programmers.

Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking

Common Questions

What are the best languages that compile to JavaScript?

Pros

Pro
Designed for High-level functional code

LiveScript has terse syntax for common functional operations like map, and ships with a library, prelude.ls, with many of the functions most commonly used by functional programmers.

Pro
Good amount of programmer flexibility

There's a huge range of features that can make common tasks faster.

Pro
ECMA 6 Features

It is the declared goal of LiveScript’s creators to track ECMAScript 6. Hence, the language gives you ECMAScript 6 plus type annotations (which are optional).

LiveScript's module syntax is currently a bit behind the ECMAScript 6 specification (something that will be fixed eventually). It supports two module standards: CJS (Node.js) and AMD (RequireJS).

Pro
Fixes coffeescript scoping issues

= is used to declare variables in the current scope, in order to redeclare variables of outer scope := is used. This way bugs are reduced.

Pro
Supported by WebStorm and Visual Studio

Pro
Type Inferred

Opa uses type inference to decide what code runs on the client or the server, so you can organize code how you like, but still be sure that it runs where it needs to.

Pro
Familiar Javascript Syntax

Opa's syntax is very similar to JavaScript, making it an easy choice for developers who are used to developing in JavaScript.

Pro
Client and Server in the same language

Ad
Cons

Con
Strong functional lean

LiveScript is designed to be a high level functional language. For people who prefer a more imperative approach it can be hard to get used to.

Con
Compiles to unreadable javascript

JSON.stringify(
each(upCaseName)(
sortBy(function(it){
  return it.id;
})(
(function(){
  var i$, ref$, len$, ref1$, j$, len1$, ref2$, results$ = [];
  for (i$ = 0, len$ = (ref$ = table1).length; i$ < len$; ++i$) {
    ref1$ = ref$[i$], id1 = ref1$.id, name = ref1$.name;
    for (j$ = 0, len1$ = (ref1$ = table2).length; j$ < len1$; ++j$) {
      ref2$ = ref1$[j$], id2 = ref2$.id, age = ref2$.age;
      if (id1 === id2) {
        results$.push({
          id: id1,
          name: name,
          age: age
        });
      }
    }
  }
  return results$;
}()))));

Con
Not popular

Opa is not as popular as other languages which compile to JavaScript. Making it harder to find learning resources or even answers if you get stuck somewhere.