Hacker News Reader

> It is possible to write sane CoffeeScript that is lexically scoped and not subject to misinterpretation.

Possible is an extremely low bar. We hold ourselves to a higher standard these days in computer science, including language design.

It is possible to write sane INTERCAL that is (however INTERCAL is scoped) and not subject to misinterpretation.

View on HN

This post does not attempt to compare CoffeeScript to INTERCAL or JavaScript as an overall design exercise. It simply points out an error that some people have made in characterizing CoffeeScript as lacking lexical scope.

It does point out that it has function-level lexical scope and that it has a construct for creating block scope which is almost identical to "let" as found in Scheme.

You can decide for yourself whether this is an advance on JavaScript or a retreat to the 1970s. If I had to defend the entire language every time I discussed CoffeeScript, mys posts would contain even more verbiage and repetition than they already do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com