the "Verbally Readable !== Quicker Comprehension" arguement on http://ryanflorence.com/2011/case-against-coffeescript/ is really potent and interesting. i and im sure other would be very interested in evidence arguing against this. there's clear evidence for this and i believe it. ppl naturally think in images, not words, so we should be designing languages dissimilar to human language like english, french, whatever.

being "readable" is quicker comprehension. most articles on wikipedia are not readable as they are long, boring, dry, sluggish, very very wordy, and because wikipedia documents a ton of info, is not especially helpful when compared to much more helpful sites with more practical, useful, and relevant info. but languages like phyton and coffescript are "verbally readable" in that they are closer to the english language syntax, and programming firstly and mainly in python, im not so sure this is really a good thing.

the second interesting argument is that coffeescript is an intermediator so thereby another step between to ends, which may increase chances of bugs.

while coffeescript has other practical benefits, this question is focused specifically on evidence showing support for the counter-case of language "readability"