I agree - I love coffeescript's syntax. It feels like comparing python to java-esk syntax (I mean without the type checking, etc)

Agreed. Coffeescript was excellent lipstick for the pig that is javascript.

Not particularly a fan, that analogy is solid. To me, a pig in lipstick seems somewhat more disturbing than one without.

I was riffing on an old expression of putting lipstick on a pig.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_on_a_pig

I realize that, but the point of the saying is typically that a pig with lipstick is little or no better than without. My point is that Coffeescript makes JS worse. It just adds an additional layer of complexity when you end up debugging the same old JS traps. The saying still holds up, because a pig wearing lipstick could actually be worse than a plain pig.

Ah, well in that case we are in disagreement. I think Coffeescript is a big improvement. It produces JS code that conforms to The Good Parts™ without having to remember to always add that third equals sign or the var keyword to avoid making a global and other such ridiculous bull-ka-ka.

So you end up not debugging the same old JS traps as much because it is a lot harder to write them. (You get to debug shiny new JS traps instead, but there's only so much a good lipstick can do.)

But it's fine if you prefer javascript to coffeescript. Tastes differ. Some people like bull-ka-ka. runs away

spread some love for moonscript (and its inspiration coffeescript of course, my daily bread-and-butter) - to my mind the best possible syntax for a (dynamic) programming language. python being second place.

is it possible to get a tattoo with significant whitespace?