Have used ClojureScript a little bit, Clojure a fair amount, a lot of coding in other Lisps.
Having code is useful! Yes! But it is easier if people are guided to it. On the reddit thread you link, you link to two tweets containing the homepages for languages like CoffeeScript, PureScript, and LispyScript. All of these pages have code on the main page, yes.
But note that on all of them, the code snippets are motivated. LispyScript has eight lines of code across six heavily explained examples. PureScript has five lines of code that come after a tagline that explains what the language is, then ten bullet points explaining benefits. Each example of Elm code is separately motivated. The user is never left guessing why the code is there: the first snippet is "Javascript Interop"; the second "No Runtime Exceptions".
Compare that to clojure-script.org/. The first thing I see when I load the page is "InterOp". Interop of what? The first English word I see on the page is "Microsoft". Is Clojurescript a Microsoft project? This is inverted, where the page wants to dive into details about Clojurescript before even explaining what Clojurescript is. You wouldn't display a Western-style horse saddle, expect them to figure out on their own the differences between that and an English saddle when you don't state them, and you definitely wouldn't talk about that before explaining what horseback riding is!