This argument against CoffeeScript isn't very objective. One of CoffeeScript's best features is the minimalistic and expressive syntax.
"CoffeeScript (#6) appears dramatically more expressive than JavaScript (#51), in fact among the best of all languages."[1]
"CoffeeScript is #1 for consistency, with an IQR spread of only 23 LOC/commit compared to even #4 Clojure at 51 LOC/commit. By the time we’ve gotten to #8 Groovy, we’ve dropped to an IQR of 68 LOC/commit. In other words, CoffeeScript is incredibly consistent across domains and developers in its expressiveness."[1]
Using the author's train of thought I could state: "Avoid Bluebird[2]. Most of its better features are now in ES6 promises, a standard."
Yes promises are in the ES6 standard, but that's not the best feature of bluebird. There were and are many promise based libraries, but bluebird was built for unmatched performance. One will use it if performance matters.
Even today it's faster than the native implementations of promises [3].
> Tooling (such as CoffeeLint) is very weak.
Maybe because, as it turns out, in CoffeeScript you don't need a lot of tooling. Why would that be a bad thing?
> Electron is the foundation of the great Atom editor and can be used to make your own applications.
Atom is written in CoffeeScript [4].
[1] http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2013/03/25/programming-language...
[2] https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird
[3] http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/278778/why-ar...