First install node.js and the coffee-script NPM module. You can find isntructions on coffeescript.org.
Watch-compile your source file with this command:
coffee --watch --compile .\coffeescriptcrashcourse.coffee
A *.js file should appear with the same name as the CoffeeScript file. In our case, coffeescriptcrashcourse.js
. Open both files in SublimeText 2, side by side.
When you make changes in the CoffeeScript file and save, the watch compiler will update the javascript as soon as the file hits the disk. To see the changes, just click in the Sublime window displaying the js, and Sublime should instantly refresh (as long as you haven't made any changes in that window.)
###Creating rules My initial implementation of createRule (created live during my SoCalCodeCamp session) looked like this:
createRule = (currentState, inputCharacter, nextState) ->
state: currentState
char: inputCharacter
next: nextState
Match: (machineState, i) ->
@state is machineState and @char is i
This works fine, and its the most obvious way to setup a function that does waht we want. Like I told my session attendees, just try what you think will work and it probably well. But if we try, we can take advantage of some additional CoffeeScript language features to make this implentation shorter:
createRule = (CurrentState, InputChar, NextState) ->
GetNextState: () -> NextState
Match: (machineState, inputChar) ->
machineState is CurrentState and inputChar is InputChar
CoffeeScript doesn't require us to manually create fields to store the state passed into the function, the variables will be automatically visible to our object. But, they wont be available later on unless we close over them. Hence, while we removed three lines, we added one back in order to make NextState
accessible. I also renamed some of the variables, and then updated the machine implementation to use the new GetNextState
function instead of directly acessing data.
I test, and everything works.
###Creating machines
Likewise, I can tighten up the createMachine implementation with the same technique. Here is the original:
createMachine = (initialState, rules, finalStates) ->
currentState: initialState
ruleSet: rules
acceptance: finalStates
ReadAll: (s) ->
@Read x for x in s.split ''
return undefined
Read: (c) ->
return if @currentState == 2
for rule in @ruleSet
if rule.Match @currentState, c
return @Update rule
@currentState = 2
Update: (r) ->
@currentState = r.GetNextState()
AcceptedInput: () ->
@currentState in @acceptance
And the new:
createMachine = (CurrentState, Rules, FinalStates) ->
ReadAll: (value) ->
@Read x for x in value.split ''
return undefined
Read: (inputChar) ->
return if CurrentState == 2
for rule in Rules
return @Update rule if rule.Match CurrentState, inputChar
CurrentState = 2
Update: (rule) ->
CurrentState = rule.GetNextState()
AcceptedInput: () ->
CurrentState in FinalStates
I also eliminated one level of nesting by turning the loop's inner conditional statement into a postfixed condition. Since nothing outside the object manipulated the object's fields, I don't need to provide any getters for CurrentState
, Rules
, or FinalStates
. Although I can just take advantage of closure to capture my data members, I still need to use the @
symbol when refering to non-closure data (in this case the non-closure fields are all functions, but the same should be true if they were just data values).
I test this and everything still works.
During the demo I created one machine instance by writing down the rules and then invoking createMachine
. Once I had the machine, I used it to evaluate a string and query whether the machine accepted the inupt. Due to a couple bugs, the machine rejected input that it should have accepted. However, once I got home and debugged it, the machine worked as expected.
Creating a one off machine was fine for the demo, but not very useful when we want to test the machine with different values. This is because a new machine must be created for each input string, since there is no way to reset a machine after it has run. createMachine
is (almost) a method for creating any finite state machine. I say "almost" because the "dead" state is hard coded as 2
. To make createMachine
useful, we must create a rule set and pass it to the machine along witht the start state, final state and (ideally) the dead state.
Lets fix the dead state issue first.
createMachine = (CurrentState, Rules, FinalStates, DeadState) ->
ReadAll: (value) ->
@Read x for x in value.split ''
return undefined
Read: (inputChar) ->
return if CurrentState == DeadState
for rule in Rules
return @Update rule if rule.Match CurrentState, inputChar
CurrentState = DeadState
Update: (rule) ->
CurrentState = rule.GetNextState()
AcceptedInput: () ->
CurrentState in FinalStates
By promoting the dead state to a parameter, we should be able to use this code to create just about any (deterministic) Finite State Machine. Of Course, we need to pass 2
when we call createMachine
for our current example to continue to work.
myMachine = createMachine 0, rules, [0], 2
Now, we can wrap up the code that creates the specific FSM from our demo.
createMyMachine = () ->
rules = [
createRule 0, '0', 1
createRule 0, '1', 1
createRule 1, '0', 0
createRule 1, '1', 0
]
createMachine 0, rules, [0], 2
With createMyMachine
we can test wtih blocks like this:
myMachine = createMyMachine()
myMachine.ReadAll "00"
alert myMachine.AcceptedInput()
myMachine2 = createMyMachine()
myMachine2.ReadAll "1"
alert myMachine2.AcceptedInput()
But clearly, we have an opportunity to remove duplication, lets do that. While we're in there we can make the output a little more informative too.
testMyMachine = (input) ->
myMachine = createMyMachine()
myMachine.ReadAll input
alert [input, myMachine.AcceptedInput()].join ','
Now we have a prettier implementation thats more useful that the starting implementation, but just happens to use the same number of lines.
During the demo I couldn't show the attendees CoffeeScript's class support. When I watched the video I realized why. I forgot to put the skinny arrow after my constructor! I should have kept a closer eye on the top right corner of coffeescript.org, there was a message up there which probably would have taken me to the right line.
Since I couldn't do it then, lets do it now, and convert our two objects into classes. Starting with the machine.
class Machine
constructor: (@CurrentState, @Rules, @FinalStates, @DeadState) ->
ReadAll: (value) =>
@Read x for x in value.split ''
return undefined
Read: (inputChar) =>
return if @CurrentState is @DeadState
for rule in @Rules
return @Update rule if rule.Match @CurrentState, inputChar
@CurrentState = @DeadState
return undefined
Update: (rule) =>
@CurrentState = rule.GetNextState()
return undefined
AcceptedInput: () =>
@CurrentState in @FinalStates
Here is our Machine
class. Its not that different than our createMachine
implementation. However, we do go back to using @
everywhere and we are using the fat arrow. The fat arrow seems like the right thing to do, according to my reading of the CoffeeScript documentation:
When used in a class definition, methods declared with the fat arrow will be automatically bound to each instance of the class when the instance is constructed.
However, I tried it with the skinny arrow and in our use case, it still worked. So, I still can't claim to understand this
binding. Oh well, we also need to update createMyMachine
to use the new
operator:
createMyMachine = () ->
rules = [
createRule 0, '0', 1
createRule 0, '1', 1
createRule 1, '0', 0
createRule 1, '1', 0
]
new Machine 0, rules, [0], 2
Now lets turn createRule
into a class.
class Rule
constructor: (@CurrentState, @InputChar, @NextState) ->
GetNextState: () => @NextState
Match: (machineState, inputChar) =>
machineState is @CurrentState and inputChar is @InputChar
Nothing very exiting, just more of what we saw when we converted Machine. We just need to update createMyMachine
to get this to work with our test.
createMyMachine = () ->
rules = [
new Rule 0, '0', 1
new Rule 0, '1', 1
new Rule 1, '0', 0
new Rule 1, '1', 0
]
new Machine 0, rules, [0], 2
In our scenario, there really isn't a big advantage to using classes, because we have no need to extend Rule
or Machine
. But, I wanted to show what this looks like because I'm sure it will be interesting to someone getting started with CoffeeScript.
Debugged, line 17 was assigning the value of @currentstate instead of checking it.
line 24 had the incorrect property name for the next state.