Oh, I just read it was mentioned in the history of the project too.

I don't applaud or condemn this, but it's strange that it's on the home and history pages. Putting this in a code of conduct document for collaborators might make sense, but on the home page? Maybe I'm the weird one, but for most languages I consider them a tool. So it's like going to the hardware store and seeing a hammer that has a label "This is not a Liberal or Conservative hammer." Yeah, buddy I know. It's just a hammer.

does this mean something?

i was very confused by your description of xoscript as typeless. only typeless languages i know of are languages where a variable can only be a word. i assume you mean it's dynamically typed.

every new language that gets on hn gets two criticisms: they don't show code first thing, and they don't start with what problem is being solved by designing a new language. i'm not very interested in those things. i would, however, like to be told what it is in a concise way. you've basically got, if i understand correctly, a smalltalk-like system here, prototype based instead of class based, with dynamically scoped variables, and you're tooling it with server side scripting in mind. that tells me a lot more than code.

as for the what-problem-are-you-solving-by-designing-this-language criticism, if we're honest we can see that every language is either designed as an experiment, "what would a language be like if...?", or it's designed as a matter of personal ergonomics, "i want language X with differences i, j, and k cuz i like it that way." i'm completely fine with that.