"Practically closed source" is a funny way to say "open source". I have not run across any Clojure libraries I wanted to use that were "abandoned". I've found

"Practically closed source" is a funny way to say "open source". I have not run across any Clojure libraries I wanted to use that were "abandoned". I've found some that have a low version number (< 1.0) and haven't had any commits in the past couple years, but that's because they do everything they set out to do, and have no (reported) bugs. I wish other ecosystems were this stable. I'm not sure exactly what complaint 3 is about. Is it that the leaders of a project aren't doing a good job of marketing and positioning, and don't understand their users? The first release of Linux was "just a hobby, won't be big and professional", and warning it "is NOT portable" and "probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks". Python was developed for the Tanenbaum's Amoeba OS. If we use that as our barometer of a valid open source project, I don't think any project in the world is going to be judged suitable. The word "transpiled" seems to only exist so people can make fun of other programming languages. (Similarly, calling its users "outspoken activists".) Your JavaScript has a virtual machine, too. Are you suggesting it's better because it lacks an explicitly specified bytecode?