That was an honest question more than a complaint. Why do CoffeeScript libraries not use the coffee extension? For broader appeal? Even if you had JavaScript documentation, I would see the source was written in CoffeeScript and realize I can't easily evaluate the quality of the source. Choosing CoffeeScript must mean you prefer it over JavaScript, so why use the extension of a language you do not prefer over one you do?

Ok, now I see what you meant. So basically we don't want to limit audience of that idea to just CoffeeScripters. Also: maybe we'll switch to JS some day - if community show the need.

You can look at the source just like any other js project. It might not look totally clean as a hand-written project, but there are absolutely worse things than looking at compiled coffeescript (cough lodash https://github.com/bestiejs/lodash/blob/master/lodash.js#L38...)

To be fair, that's a template you linked...

Also, why go out-of-your-way to bash another project? Why didn't you link the hexagonal source you mentioned, which would have been productive, instead of lodash?

That template is source code for a function, it becomes the body of many lodash methods using eval. It's not out of my way, it sits right on top of my personal "ugly code" list; couldn't think of a better (worse?) example.

As I understand it there is no hexagonal source, it's just an architecture.