# In Defense of Coffeescript

DevFeed: [In Defense of Coffeescript](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/in-defense-of-coffeescript-32134.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://adambard.com/blog/in-defense-of-coffeescript/>)

Published: 2014-04-06T00:00:00Z

Content type: opinion

Language: en

Sources: [Adam Bard](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/adam-bard.md>)

Topics: [JavaScript](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/javascript.md>), [Code](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/code.md>), [Programming](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/programming.md>), [Ember](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/ember.md>)

Tags: [bugs](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/bugs.md>), [javascript](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/javascript.md>), [opinion](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/opinion.md>), [pitfalls](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/pitfalls.md>), [scope](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/scope.md>)

## AI overview

The author argues that CoffeeScript can be more succinct, readable, and safer than equivalent JavaScript. The article discusses local scope by default, an existence operator for null checks, and looping and comprehensions as ways CoffeeScript can help avoid common JavaScript pitfalls.

## Source excerpt

I often see arguments about whether or not using coffeescript is a good idea. Arguments against usually center around whether it's a barrier for contributions, or whether it's an unnecessary abstraction over another language that the developer needs to know anyhow.