[jonpress]

That's why I'm not a huge fan of Coffeescript or even convenience utility libraries like underscore/lodash. They save you a couple of lines or a few opening /closing braces but they make code more difficult to understand (to the average programmer) and (in the case of utility libraries) increase your reliance on reference documentation.

I generally prefer simple constructs that require multiple lines over complex one-liners. Although it depends on who is on the team. I prefer to write code that any polyglot programmer with a modest level of mastery in any specific language can understand.

[jonahx]

> They save you a couple of lines or a few opening /closing braces but they make code more difficult to understand

There is a massive confounding factor: popularity, in the sense of what is familiar to the largest number of people. And this, in turn, is largely an accident of history, politics, and marketing.

Which is to say, sure, more people will understand a "for" loop written in the familiar C/Java style than a "map" one liner. But that does not mean the "for" loop is easier to understand, in the sense of expressing a concept naturally and declaratively.

[progmal1]

On the other hand having a filter construct is way nicer than having to manage the two arrays on your own.

Or worse yet, when someone is trying to remove items from a list that is self resizing, it is very easy to make bugs (by not adjusting the counter in the for loop when one is removed).

[jondubois]

Yes, I think it boils down to popularity. As a language becomes more popular, it may be more acceptable to use more advanced constructs.

[stdbrouw]

I was talking with a social scientist recently who (reluctantly) had to write code in order to run certain statistical analyses. Her solution, to keep code understandable, was to make sure everything could be read as a linear script, in the literal meaning of that word. No functions other than those that come with the language, because that means you have to refer back to earlier code to see what on earth is happening. No loops, because you don't visually see how often something is being repeated.

Sure, you have to draw the line somewhere, but refusing to use Python/CoffeeScript comprehensions because not every language has them, or preferring to use your own utility function for removing doubles from an array instead of underscore.js's _.uniq to me feels like optimizing not for the average programmer but for the mentally challenged.

Sometimes you do get to have your cake and eat it too: simple one-liners instead of confusing and verbose line noise.

[seanwilson]

I wish a library like underscore or lodash was built into JavaScript to be honest as JavaScript lacks built-in functions for common tasks. Any time a library boasts "no dependencies!", they end up doing their own implementations of a bunch of lodash functions in a more verbose and less safe manner. The functions in lodash are general enough and quick enough to understand if you've not seen them before that it's much better to use them than writing your own in my opinion.