Might as well just use vanilla HTML, CSS and JS... no?

That cannot be updated by the non-technical people in the company.

And your examples are somehow better readable to "non-tech...company"? How? Better, as compared to...oh wait, not compared to anything, tested on a sample of 20 people. Passing that off as "This is not wishful thinking; it’s published, peer-reviewed research" (your front page) is dishonest at best. And it gets better. Those people in the study were recruited at "local web design meetup groups". Non-technical? How's that for selection bias?

It seems just like Angular to me - and worse, buggy Angular: how does "Born on time property="birthday" datetime="2014-06-01" 1 Jun 2014 /time" get transformed into "Adam Catlace Born on 1 May 2014"? ( http://mavo.io/docs/primer/ , current Google Chrome, version 58, no extensions, no weird timezone one month behind the rest of the world)

The language does seem nice for the tasks at hand, and the learning curve looks shallow, but you are overhyping it way too much ("no programming", "better readable").

Sometimes I think a static CMS like Lektor may be a better framework to set up. The static nature prevents any of the dynamic exploits but still maintain templating system without adding complexity after the initial setup.

https://www.futurehosting.com/blog/lektor-is-a-static-site-g...