[bentlegen]

Why does everybody compare CoffeeScript against vanilla JavaScript? I find using underscore makes my code sufficiently elegant that I've never felt the need to switch to CoffeeScript.

[tlrobinson]

    var newArray = _.map(_.filter(array, function(item) {
        return item % 2;
    }), function(item) {
        return item + 1;
    });

vs

    newArray = (item + 1 for item in array when item % 2)

Uh huh.

[oftenwrong]

You could also do it with chain, which could make the first example a bit simpler to read and write. It is something like:

    var newArray = _.chain(array).filter(function(item) {
            return item % 2;
        }).map(function(item) {
            return item + 1;
        }).value();

I often use CoffeeScript + Underscore

[bentlegen]

You don't even need to call _.chain or value – underscore already does this automatically. You can also write it like so, if you like:

  var newArray = _(array).filter(function(item) {
        return item % 2;
    }).map(function(item) {
        return item + 1;
    });

Personally, I find this quite readable. And honestly, my comment was more about comparing CoffeeScript to its compiled JavaScript output, as is done in the slides. The compiled output is incredibly verbose and gives the false impression that JavaScript is always complicated.