heh, I included this line because it's true, but that whole section is about why "use coffee because you like python" is the wrong tldr.

The rest of the article is about how you prefer CoffeeScript syntax, so how is that tldr wrong?

Because an accurate summary would actually summarize what they said, not just list their bias. I would summarize it as, "The Dropbox team prefers the readability of Coffeescript, the conversion took one week, they reduced the lines of code in their codebase by 20%, and there was no impact on functionality."

If they like Python, maybe they should have tried LiveScript (http://gkz.github.com/LiveScript/) - a descendent of CoffeeScript.

Unlike CoffeeScript, but like Python, it has proper list comprehensions `["#x#y" for x in [\a \b] for y in [1 2]]` which I think is very important to any Python fan, dict comprehensions, and (more minor) you can use `is not`, like in Python, instead of `isnt`. (Along with many other features.)

I mostly do Perl, but I vastly prefer CoffeeScript to JS. The significant whitespace thing is actually a negative for me with CS, but it eliminates so many JS annoyances that it's worth putting up with.