>>3 Go away please!
Anyway it's not like naive lurking will pull up any information on stuff like this unless someone necrobumps related threads or posts about it.
Also a greasemonkey script would be mostly trivial if anyone could be arsed to do it (regardless of previous existence of a javascript implementation). They would be revered here at /anus/, imagine the praise they'd get...
Ah well. It'll never happen.
>>5
Do it, faggot. I don't know anything about compilers or interpreters, so if I tried to write something like that it would probably turn out pretty fucking shitty.
>>7
JS is especially bumpy if you come from a Lisp background, because JS code uses plenty of closures but it also uses imperative control structures, which means that 90% of the time the closure is referencing cells that have changed. (Same reason why closures suck in Python or a few other languages, though they're still better than using STL-style stuff).
This is why we revere Scheme and Haskell: closures should capture values and not references.
>>17
Because they are used less frequently than parentheses? Square brackets would have made sense as well, but you do use them occasionally (in footnotes, etc.), so I guess that braces made more sense in the end.