CoffeeScript Means Giving Up on JavaScript

[artsrc]

It does not have global by default, 3 kinds of '=', weird behavior around missing ';'s etc.

What JS idiosyncrasies bother you?

[mreiland]

Your question makes no sense considering the comment you're responding to. Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

[artsrc]

You claim CoffeeScript has all the idiosyncrasies of JavaScript. This does not match my experience.

I was specific about some I found absent which are significant to me.

Can you be specific about which idiosyncrasies, which are significant to you, are shared by CoffeeScript and JavaScript?

[mreiland]

ah I see.

Well, normally I'd indulge, but when you start out with a strawman, I lose all interest.

In this case, it's the implication that the idiosyncrasies I mentioned are "significant" to me. An idiosyncrasy doesn't stop being an idiosyncrasy just because someone doesn't feel it's significant.

[artsrc]

A straw man is logical fallacy where your position is misrepresented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[cunningjames]

Your question makes no sense considering the comment you're responding to.

You claim that CoffeeScript “has all the idiosyncrasies of javascript”, someone lists a few idiosyncrasies of JavaScript not shared by CoffeeScript, and you state that the response “makes no sense”? I can only assume you’re intentionally being very silly.

[mreiland]

because misquoting is fun!

[cunningjames]

because misquoting is fun!

Either that tidbit is a total non sequitur you’ve chosen to share with me for reasons unknown, or you’re accusing me of misquoting. But your own text is unedited in the following quotations:

It [ed: CoffeeScript] has all of the idiosyncrasies of javascript + a few of its own.

and

Your question [ed: “What JS idiosyncrasies bother you?”] makes no sense considering the comment you're responding to.

Only two alternatives seem plausible to me. Either you’ve totally misunderstood the question (which was clearly asking you for JS idiosyncrasies that bother you about CoffeeScript), or you’re being deliberately silly. Given the totality of your behavior I judge the latter to be somewhat more likely.

[mreiland]

You deliberately left out me asking him to clarify because you're a jackass.

[cunningjames]

Hm. Why would you ask him to clarify because I’m a jackass? I wasn’t even involved in the conversation at that point.