Ruby on Rails: JavaScript with ES6 or CoffeeScript?

railsjavascriptSeptember 28, 2014Dotby Justin Gordon

I've been a huge fan of CoffeeScript for Rails development over the past several years. However there's a several reasons that I'm heavily leaning toward using JavaScript with the ES6 transpiler, and abandoning CoffeeScript for new Rails work.

Reasons I'm Switching from CoffeeScript to JavaScript with ES6

  1. I want to use React. While it's feasible to use JSX with Coffeescript, this just adds another moving part to the toolchain. As part of using React, I'm learning from examples and contributing to others' open source projects.
  2. I want to use ES6 modules, along with other ES6 features. The plan for CoffeeScript in light of ES6 is uncertain, and existing CoffeeScript concepts overlap in confusing ways with ES6, as shown by the quote from Yehuda below.
  3. When reviewing open source for sample front-end code, there's a ton of JavaScript examples. CoffeeScript examples, on the other hand, are rare except for Rails examples.
  4. Passing closures/functions around in JavaScript for the modern client-side libraries is everywhere (see example below). While I love the clarity of CoffeeScript for simple classes, with several levels of nesting, I'd rather see the braces.
  5. I've spoken to friends at big companies like Facebook, and they're using ES6 syntax rather than CoffeeScript.
  6. Open source projects like Discourse are using JavaScript rather than CoffeeScript.
  7. The ES6 features look great. Try out the ES6 Fiddle and read Robin Ward's article on ES6 Modules for Discourse. discussion on use of JavaScript vs. CoffeeScript

I really like this discussion of why switched to using JavaScript from CoffeeScript.

Here's my pick of the highlights:

To quote Tom Dale:

CoffeeScript jeopardizes the ability to stay up-to-date with the web platform. Parts of CoffeeScript require new syntax that is incompatible with features coming in ES6 and ES7. By using CoffeeScript, you are locking yourself into always using ES5. One of the principles of TC39, 1JS, means that if you author ES4 code today, it will guarantee to continue working in the future, and be easy to upgrade when new features start landing in browsers.

To quote Simonlmn:

I don't understand the problem here. Which parts of CoffeeScript require "new syntax" in JavaScript? Isn't the problem exactly the same if you were using "plain" JavaScript, that at some point in time, if some breaking change occurs in some future version of JavaScript, you would have to change your code?

To quote Yehuda Katz:

Actually, this problem could not occur in JavaScript, because ES6+ will always be backwards compatible with the current version of JavaScript. Further, the "1JS" principle means that you will be able to take existing code and opt into new features simply by using the new syntax (there will be no "use es6" pragma or version switch).

The core difference is that ES6 is, by definition and by requirement, a strict superset of current JavaScript. By definition, there can be no new syntax that is incompatible with existing JavaScript.

In contrast, how would CoffeeScript target the new for/of loops, when they already have for/of loops of their own? Sure, they could add new syntax, but it would be massively confusing for for/of to target the old semantics, and some other syntax to target ES6 for/of.

Similarly, CoffeeScript classes and super have subtly different semantics than ES6 classes and super. If CoffeeScript started targeting the new semantics, they would break existing code. If they required a different keyword to target ES6 class, it would, again, be very confusing.

You could imagine an incompatible CoffeeScript 2 that targeted ES6 syntax, but existing CoffeeScript code would not work. Again, this cannot happen in future versions of JavaScript, because new JavaScript features are required not to break existing JavaScript code.

It may be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around the difference, but I assure you, it's true.

Example of JavaScript vs. CoffeeScript when passing around functions

Here's a quote from Dave Stone:

Aside from the points that have already been discussed, I've noticed that writing Ember apps in CoffeeScript also just feels a little off. Several of the niceties of Ember, like computed properties, are expressed as extensions on the JS Function prototype:

I think that Dave's example below clearly shows how JavaScript sometimes works better when functions are passed around heavily.


MyApp.president = Ember.Object.create({
    fullName: function() {
      return this.get('firstName') + ' ' + this.get('lastName');
    }.property('firstName', 'lastName')


MyApp.president = Ember.Object.create
    fullName: (->
     @get('firstName') + ' ' + @get('lastName')
    ).property('firstName', 'lastName')

The CoffeeScript requires parentheses around the function definition. It's also very white-space sensitive, even outside of indentation.


Overall, I'm betting on ES6 for my web client work for the next year!

Closing Remark

Could your team use some help with topics like this and others covered by ShakaCode's blog and open source? We specialize in optimizing Rails applications, especially those with advanced JavaScript frontends, like React. We can also help you optimize your CI processes with lower costs and faster, more reliable tests. Scraping web data and lowering infrastructure costs are two other areas of specialization. Feel free to reach out to ShakaCode's CEO, Justin Gordon, at or schedule an appointment to discuss how ShakaCode can help your project!
Are you looking for a software development partner who can
develop modern, high-performance web apps and sites?
See what we've doneArrow right