I think its great that these guys are trying something. They have an argument, and instead of theorizing they are going for it. I just think that its to far away from what JS is, JS has a long history behind it, and these 3 guys are trying to change that entire history with one broad stroke, I think that is nearly impossible to achieve.
Besides if they feel they have something JS developers want why not take it through the standards bodies.
I am one of those people, so no need to refer to me in the third person :)
Standards bodies are hopelessly slow. If I wanted to wait a decade to get a new feature, I'd propose it to a standards body. I actually want to write programs.
Part of the power of Objective-J is taking control of the language away from standards bodies. Objective-J can evolve at any pace we like, and anyone can fork it and make their own changes.
JavaScript does have a long history, but it's an awful one. It's a history of being a second class language that was slow and that was not used to produce anything significant. Only recently has that changed. And there is now a growing culture of implementing languages on top of JavaScript. Python, Ruby, Smalltak, and others have all been written on top of JS. GWT compiles from Java to JS. There are similar compilers for Lisp, PHP, C# and others. It seems narrow minded to assume that only the flavor of JS that has existed for over a decade should be allowed to exist. That's why we build abstractions.
We are not rewriting history nor are we moving far away from what JavaScript is. Most of the code you write is pure JavaScript anyway. You can do as much in pure JS as you like. We are making the programming environment easier to use, should you choose to take advantage of that.
Besides if they feel they have something JS developers want why not take it through the standards bodies.