[masterzora]

They wrote you a nice library and are giving it away under an MIT license. You don't get to pick the style they use to write the examples.

This is a response to something nobody's saying.

Obviously if they write it they get to choose pretty much everything about it. Nobody is disputing such a thing.

However, if one of the goals in releasing this is to be maximally useful, isn't the fact that raw Javascript is more readily understandable to more people a good thing to point out? Especially since it's highly likely that the team actually has the ability to do normal JS just as easily.

If they disagree with such a goal, though, they can feel free to do whatever they want.

[goodside]

Nobody who knows CoffeeScript needs to be informed that JavaScript is more mainstream.

[masterzora]

Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the use of CoffeeScript-only examples was a calculated move to reach the audience they wanted instead of whatever came to mind first. It's worth at least reminding them that JS examples might be more useful to more people and letting them decide consciously whether they care.

[MatthewPhillips]

They use coffeescript's class inheritance. Here's the JS that compiles down to:

http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#classes

If they showed JS examples it would instantly turn everyone off. Trust me, you do NOT want to use this with JS.

[Cushman]

This will be maximally useful if you learn CoffeeScript.