Maybe because ToffeeScript is prior art? https://github.com/jiangmiao/toffeescript

Wasn't super popular, but wasn't unknown either.

+1 for tofeescript.

'Civet' certainly implies your code is being processed, but I'm not sure the connotation is desirable.

And all IMHO of course, but significant-whitespace is the worst idea ever.

> significant-whitespace is the worst idea ever

Hear hear! I never heard a single argument for significant invisible characters that makes sense, ever.

Who would want to have a program that fails because you used invisible character X instead of invisible character Y?

A distinction between invisible character X and invisible character Y is a terrible idea. But indentation is very much visible; it's generally more significant to the reader than braces are, so it should be that significant to the computer too.

Civets, they're nature's transpilers.

> I'm not sure the connotation is desirable.

You'd think not, and yet ...

Wait, what's wrong with making sure indentation and code structure are always the same? Lying indentation structure is always wrong.

It's easy to auto-format according to character syntax, not so easy when the format is the syntax.

Simple copy/paste is enough to break significant-whitespace, let alone space-vs-tabs, etc, etc.

But again, all IMHO, I realise it has it's fans.

+1 for FP family tree languages that compile to JS.

This might be a good stepping stone though to sway skeptics.