Doesn't work. There are fundamental differences between Haskell and Ruby, or between Java and Clojure, or between Scala and JavaScript.
Solutions written in these languages will look vastly different. Nobody is attempting the actor model in Haskell because the actor model is anti static typing, non-deterministic and there's nothing FP about it. You don't see the State or the IO monads in many other languages. Or type-classes and higher-kinded types for that matter. LISP macros are a language feature, not a runtime feature, so you can forget about interoperability. Ditto for Linq in .NET or for scala-async. ActiveRecord / ActiveModel has been a good idea for Ruby on Rails, but would be terrible in Scala. Garbage collection changes everything - for one, building immutable data-structure becomes something you can do. Etc, etc...
Point is, programming languages aren't equal and the universe of languages is not unidimensional. And how a library gets implemented is not orthogonal to the picked language.
Solutions written in these languages will look vastly different. Nobody is attempting the actor model in Haskell because the actor model is anti static typing, non-deterministic and there's nothing FP about it. You don't see the State or the IO monads in many other languages. Or type-classes and higher-kinded types for that matter. LISP macros are a language feature, not a runtime feature, so you can forget about interoperability. Ditto for Linq in .NET or for scala-async. ActiveRecord / ActiveModel has been a good idea for Ruby on Rails, but would be terrible in Scala. Garbage collection changes everything - for one, building immutable data-structure becomes something you can do. Etc, etc...
Point is, programming languages aren't equal and the universe of languages is not unidimensional. And how a library gets implemented is not orthogonal to the picked language.