>> you lose static typing and type inference in the compiler
It doesn't matter what the target language is if you want to do static typing or type inference. For example, Haskell compiles down to assembly, but still has an extremely robust type system with inference and all.
>> severely restrict the target platforms and future growth
Are you serious? JavaScript is supported on every platform and is experiencing crazy growth.
You have also misunderstood my concerns. I am not making any statement regarding the choice of target or object or source language (JS, JS, Roy). I am am objecting to the choice of metalanguage (JS). Haskell compiles to assembly but is not written in assembly!
I am very serious. JavaScript is terrible for analysis and a huge waste on the server-side or mobile. Choosing JavaScript as the metalanguage for an implementation of an HM type system is strange. Why have an HM type system itself written in a type-unsafe way? Why artificially limit the analyzability of the language implementation which is pure and simply string(Roy) -> string(JS)? Roy looks like it has great potential and one of the reasons for that potential is its nascent type system. I want to take my pure Roy function library to ObjC, OCaml, C--, etc.
It doesn't matter what the target language is if you want to do static typing or type inference. For example, Haskell compiles down to assembly, but still has an extremely robust type system with inference and all.
>> severely restrict the target platforms and future growth
Are you serious? JavaScript is supported on every platform and is experiencing crazy growth.