It's funny to see some of the comments on this thread (or the comments on any thread about CoffeeScript), demonstrating exactly what Aseem is writing in his post. Delicious irony, that.
To make a different point, and one which can easily get missed -- the other unsatisfactory argument I hear somewhat often is: "I love the idea of CoffeeScript, except for X feature, which is terrible, so I won't try it." Where X can stand for scoping, classes, optional parentheses, and the like...
One of the big goals with the CoffeeScript compiler -- despite all of it's flaws and imperfections -- was to annotate and make accessible the source code, and to keep it tiny (I think still somewhere ~< 2,000 LOC), so that if there's one particular thing you don't like, you're free to change it. So if you're intrigued, but dislike X, feel free to fix X before using it, and send your patch along as a pull request. Open source, right?
To make a different point, and one which can easily get missed -- the other unsatisfactory argument I hear somewhat often is: "I love the idea of CoffeeScript, except for X feature, which is terrible, so I won't try it." Where X can stand for scoping, classes, optional parentheses, and the like...
One of the big goals with the CoffeeScript compiler -- despite all of it's flaws and imperfections -- was to annotate and make accessible the source code, and to keep it tiny (I think still somewhere ~< 2,000 LOC), so that if there's one particular thing you don't like, you're free to change it. So if you're intrigued, but dislike X, feel free to fix X before using it, and send your patch along as a pull request. Open source, right?
http://coffeescript.org/documentation/docs/grammar.html#sect...