The landing page explicitly says "jank is 100% compatible with Clojure."
not "jank aims to be..." No, "jank IS"
this is... ridiculously uncool and misleading.
not "jank aims to be..." No, "jank IS"
this is... ridiculously uncool and misleading.
The usage of "jank" here refers to its design; the concept of jank. This is different from its current implementation. jank is designed to be many things, as the landing page shows, and the implementation is catching up with that.
Nobody cares about the "design" of a language when there is no implementation that fully realizes the design. Otherwise, anyone can say "my language is 100% compatible with clojure, but oh, yeah, the clojure compatibility part isn't fully implemented yet".
If your landing page said "jank's goal is to be 100% compatible with clojure", or "jank is designed to be 100% compatible with clojure (when fully implemented)" that would be fine. Right now the statement is just false, because right now, the language isn't 100% compatible with clojure.
I really think you should change the wording -- and I say that as someone genuinely interested in the project. I hope you achieve 100% clojure compatibility, that would be really cool. With the way things are worded now the first impression you are giving people is that the language implementation is way more complete than it is, which I believe will be a big negative for you in the long run.
Like clang is still C, just like GCC is still C