Crockford has not "unveiled" Misty. He's never formally announced the existence of this language AFAIK. He has a blog, but he hasn't made a blog post about Misty.<p>Misty has been around since 2010. The earliest snapshot <<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20171025001743/crockford.com/misty" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://web.archive.org/web/20171025001743/crockford.com/mis...</a>> of the Misty language page on archive.org is from October 2017, and that page says "(c) 2010 Douglas Crockford".<p>Not only has Crockford not announced the language, but he's provided no commentary, metadata or explanation about it. From looking at archive.org snapshots, we can see that the language has changed over time, but there is no metadata from Crockford about this. No versions numbers or releases. And there is no public implementation.<p>So I think this is an unannounced hobby project.
> The language is quite strict in its use of spaces and indentation. [...]Misty instead allows only one convention which is strictly enforced. This liberates programmers to focus their attention on more important matters.<p>I understand the motive, but regardless that makes it an instant no-go for me.
Much props to Doug and his previous work, but this seems like a terrible idea.<p>There is no clear advantage over JS/TS and the use of <i>invisible</i> characters to have such a dramatic effect on syntax is a non-starter.<p>Today's IDEs let us format and find errors in code laid out in many different ways. (Prettier, etc.). Why would we give that up?