Came in here to post the same thing. As another Lisp to JavaScript transpiler and the popularity and support for ClojureScript already I think there needs to be some pretty compelling differences.
It needs to be different than ClojureScript as well as more than a dozen other lisp-to-js projects. [1]
These are fun projects, and I don't doubt that the authors and a few individuals have or will get great use of of it, but the market is saturated with languages that compile JS right now and very few stick out or are likely to get critical mass. Even Coffeescript, which is probably the most popular one, has a small community.
I personally am all about encouraging people to make all the new languages and tools they want, even if it duplicates existing stuff. But I also agree that the comparison with the similar stuff should probably be mentioned.
There's lots of reasons for a hobby or research project to reinvent a particular wheel. Not everything has to be efficient or practical. But it's probably at least worth considering.
I imagine the pain of setting clojurescript or cljx up with repls and such will soon be eclipsed by one of these dead simple compile to js lisps which seem to be coming out with increasing speed.
Just musing, but just supporting a js target could replace clojure in entirety since the jvm also has a js runtime.
