gistfile1.txt

You appear to be advocating a new:

[ ] cloud-hosted [ ] locally installable [ ] web-based [ ] browser-based [ ] language-agnostic
[ ] language-specific IDE. Your IDE will not succeed. Here is why it will not succeed.

You appear to believe that:
[ ] Syntax highlighting is what makes programming difficult
[ ] Garbage collection is free
[ ] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
    [ ] a REPL  [ ] debugger support  [ ] a local filesystem
    [ ] to interact with code not written in your IDE's preferred language
[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
[ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a new IDE will be easy
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
[ ] Programmers love learning new keybindings

Unfortunately, your IDE (has/lacks):
[ ] vi keybindings
[ ] emacs keybindings
[ ] Syntax highlighting
[ ] User-configurable indentation
[ ] Macros
   [ ] Written in JavaScript [ ] Written not in JavaScript
   [ ] Written in a scripting language you made up
   [ ] Written in JSON
[ ] A windowing system
[ ] Version control
   [ ] Only using git [ ] only using github.com [ ] not using git
   [ ] using an RCS of your own devising
[ ] Its own platform-independent look-and-feel
   [ ] that was designed by a programmer
   [ ] based on yesterday's design fads
   [ ] applied inconsistently
[ ] A look and feel specific to one operating system
   [ ] that was last widely used in 1989
   [ ] and was known to cause seizures

The following philosophical objections apply:
[ ] Programmers should not need to understand CSS to change their font
[ ] The most significant program written using your IDE is itself
[ ] The most significant program written using your UDE isn't even itself
[ ] The implementation is closed-source
    [ ] covered by patents  [ ] not owned by you
[ ] The DOM is not an application framework
[ ] The name of your IDE makes it impossible to find on Google
[ ] Your IDE assumes JavaScript can be made infinitely fast
[ ] You seem to think static analysis is worthless

Your implementation has the following flaws:
[ ] JavaScript is not faster than C, C++, or Java
[ ] The DOM is not a windowing framework
[ ] It crashes on any file larger than 32k
[ ] You provide no way for users to run the program they are editing
[ ] You require the user to check in code before it can be run
[ ] The IDE crashes if you look at it funny
[ ] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
[ ] You think a single string is an acceptable data type for a text editor

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:
[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity
[ ] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"
[ ] Obviously faked screenshots
[ ] No one really believes that your IDE is faster than:
    [ ] vi  [ ] emacs  [ ] Eclipse  [ ] Visual Studio  [ ] IntelliJ [ ] Notepad
[ ] Rejection of orthodox user interface design without justification
[ ] Rejection of usability principles without justification
[ ] Rejection of established platform conventions without justification
[ ] Rejection of basic user interaction without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
[ ] Your example workflow would be one key command in: _______________________
[ ] We already have an IDE in the browser
[ ] We already have an IDE that can be scripted using
   [ ] Python [ ] JavaScript [ ] A Lisp [ ] Lua
[ ] You have reinvented vi but worse
[ ] You have reinvented emacs but worse
[ ] You have reinvented TextMate but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Eclipse but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Notepad but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Notebad better, but that's still no justification
[ ] You have reinvented ed but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
[ ] This is a bad IDE, and you should feel bad for creating it.
[ ] Programming in this IDE is an adequate punishment for inventing it.