You realize, I assume, that you're making a lot of quixotic choices in this library, many of which appear to be different for personal (and, in some cases, I wo

You realize, I assume, that you're making a lot of quixotic choices in this library, many of which appear to be different for personal (and, in some cases, I would say dubious) reasons. 1-indexed arrays? Arrays are no longer objects? An 'each' function that uses it's own way of combining what countless languages before you have split into 'map', 'filter' and 'each' functions? Etc etc. I'm going to hazard a guess that your work has been predominately if not exclusively as a solo dev. This is effectively your personal utility library. That's cool. The problem is that virtually all software eventually ends up being a team effort, if nothing else than by the guy/gal who has to work on it after you. You may not like how JS does some things (like zero-indexing), but that guy already knows JS, he doesn't know your library. By revamping core semantics of JS, you're forcing him to learn your opinions. Are you so sure of your opinions that you can confidently say it's worth everyone else undergoing that effort? Are your opinions really so important as to break compatibility with every other piece of JS? I gather from your comments that you intend this library as the base of a larger project. I'd encourage you to base that project on more widely known foundations -- pick your favorite module system, and use underscore.js or one of the other widely vetted and tested utility libraries.