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.
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.