OK, either your description page doesn't get your point across at all, or you're missing a definition somewhere.
'Wish the function keyword in JavaScript wasn't so long? What if you could define functions with def instead?'
Erh, no? Why in the lord's name would I ? Is that your big selling point? 'I don't like function() because it's too long?'
'Want a better way to make "classy" objects?'
<provides example that looks like php vomited on Javascript after mating with ruby>
Why would you want to make javascript less like javascript, introduce a dependency to javascript that can read your language, and then compiles back into javascript in realtime, in a way that will obviously make debugging nearly impossible (like coffeescript)?
Am I the only one that doesnt understand the use case of this? Or should this have been presented as just another lexer/parser?
'Wish the function keyword in JavaScript wasn't so long? What if you could define functions with def instead?'
Erh, no? Why in the lord's name would I ? Is that your big selling point? 'I don't like function() because it's too long?'
'Want a better way to make "classy" objects?'
<provides example that looks like php vomited on Javascript after mating with ruby>
Why would you want to make javascript less like javascript, introduce a dependency to javascript that can read your language, and then compiles back into javascript in realtime, in a way that will obviously make debugging nearly impossible (like coffeescript)?
Am I the only one that doesnt understand the use case of this? Or should this have been presented as just another lexer/parser?