Yea, there always seems to be a disconnect in these conversations between people who aren't yet used to Javascript's grotesqueness and those who are desensitized to it. Javascript was so horrible for so long, and remained horrible every time I tried it because "seriously, it's good now", that there's a fairly significant threshold to get me interested in using it when any other alternative is available.

Naturally, if I was making a decision for a company I worked at, I would do my due diligence and likely end up using JS for any of a number of reasons that don't have to do with how unpleasant and unproductive working in the language is. But for personal projects, I'd happily use something like this, short of discovering a show-stopping problem with it.

The thread OP comment just seems like classic defensiveness about JS; a project like this is never going to be literally perfect for corporate production use on day one or but it doesn't need to be to be useful. Even on the off chance that it were to grow into something widely useful, at that point you'd see a lot of powerful actors polishing off the rough edges. This is exactly what happened to Javascript: the only reason it's defensible at all is because of the millions of dollars poured into it and its ecosystem by companies like Google, Mozilla, etc