4 ms·

I don't think all features are "just" syntactic sugar: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/04/writing-programs-for-people-to-read.html http://weblog.raganwald.com

I don't think all features are "just" syntactic sugar: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/04/writing-programs-for-people-to-read.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/04/writing-programs-for-peo... Everyone parrots the line that programs should be written for people to read. I agree, and that's exactly why I use CoffeeScript: All of the devs in our office read and write JavaScript fluently, but code written in CoffeeScript is easier to read than code written in JavaScript.

mseebach 15y ago
Yes, certainly. But the issue was whether these features makes CoffeeScript inherently more readable than JavaScript to a Ruby developer.
karterk 15y ago
> but code written in CoffeeScript is easier to read than code written in JavaScript. To be fair, that's a personal preference as well. For e.g. some people prefer reading code with symbols (&&, ||) than English keywords (and, or). Also, I have seen people from a C/C++ or Java background find JS easier to read than CS.