This is a response to something nobody's saying.

Obviously if they write it they get to choose pretty much everything about it. Nobody is disputing such a thing.

However, if one of the goals in releasing this is to be maximally useful, isn't the fact that raw Javascript is more readily understandable to more people a good thing to point out? Especially since it's highly likely that the team actually has the ability to do normal JS just as easily.

If they disagree with such a goal, though, they can feel free to do whatever they want.

http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#classes

If they showed JS examples it would instantly turn everyone off. Trust me, you do NOT want to use this with JS.

Or maybe more accurately a speech in modern English to a group of early modern English speakers.

Right... "alternative"... so makes sense to not give examples entirely in it unless your framework is intended solely for Coffeescript users.

  (function() {
  var Shopify;
  var __hasProp = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty, __extends = function(child, parent) {
    for (var key in parent) { if (__hasProp.call(parent, key)) child[key] = parent[key]; }
    function ctor() { this.constructor = child; }
    ctor.prototype = parent.prototype;
    child.prototype = new ctor;
    child.__super__ = parent.prototype;
    return child;
  };
  Shopify = (function() {
    function Shopify() {
      Shopify.__super__.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
    }
    __extends(Shopify, Batman.App);
    Shopify.root('products#index');
    Shopify.resources('products');
    return Shopify;
  })();
  Shopify.Product = (function() {
    function Product() {
      Product.__super__.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
    }
    __extends(Product, Batman.Model);
    Product.persist(Batman.RestStorage);
    return Product;
  })();
  Shopify.ProductsController = (function() {
    function ProductsController() {
      ProductsController.__super__.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
    }
    __extends(ProductsController, Batman.Model);
    ProductsController.prototype.index = function() {
      return this.redirect({
        action: 'show',
        id: 1
      });
    };
    ProductsController.prototype.show = function(params) {
      return this.product = Shopify.Product.find(params.id);
    };
    return ProductsController;
  })();

    var Shopify = Batman.App.extend()
    Shopify.root('products#index')
    Shopify.resources('products')

    Shopify.Product = Batman.Model.extend()
    Shopify.Product.persist(Batman.RestStorage)

    // I'm never sure about how much I'm expected to mimic CoffeeScript code
    // when using libraries written in CoffeeScript and the source code is
    // written in a language I'm not practiced at reading - I've been bitten in
    // the past by CoffeeScript-only examples which *assume* you're transpiling
    // to JS in your head to insert the implicit return of the result of the
    // last expression.
    Shopify.ProductsController = Batman.Controller.extend({
      index: function() {
        return this.redirect({action: 'show', id: 1})
      }

    , show: function(params) {
        return this.product = Shopify.Product.find(params.id)
      }
    })

    var Shopify = Batman.App.extend({
      root: 'products#index'
    , resources: 'products'
    })

[1] https://github.com/documentcloud/backbone/blob/master/backbo...

[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2923694

Would makes sense to say this on the front page of the project. Most Coffeescript projects do.