Thanks for asking — and sorry for the slow reply. Short answer to "are you just removing a bunch of keywords?": yes, essentially. FunctionalScript is a strict subset of JavaScript with everything that can cause a side effect removed, so a .f.ts / .f.js module is already a valid JS module and imports into an ordinary TypeScript or JavaScript project with no transpilation and no build step. No unsafe escape hatch, no standard library beyond the safe subset of the JS built-ins, and a module may only depend on other FunctionalScript modules.

The README has grown a good deal since you filed this — Getting Started, the fjs CLI commands, CAS and MCP usage, design principles, and a link to the language spec draft — but you are right that it still contains no FunctionalScript code, which is the part that would actually spark interest.

Tracked in todo/samples.md (on claude/github-issues-review-k2h71o, pending merge): a samples/ directory with one runnable sample per subdirectory, exercised by CI so the examples cannot go stale, indexed from the README, with the smallest one embedded inline on the front page. #233 asked for the same thing from the samples side and is linked to the same file.

Meanwhile, the closest thing to what you asked for is todo/demo/README.md — it walks through a math.f.js module used from plain JavaScript, and shows how import and const let a data module express shared references (a graph) where JSON can only express a tree. It is a presentation script rather than polished docs, and parts of it are dated, but it answers "what does this look like in practice" better than anything else in the repo right now.

This issue stays open as your thread until the samples land.

Generated by Claude Code

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Better docs / create more interest #485

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions