I can understand the motivation. But not sure if I want to be surrounded by hardware powered by software written by people who think that Javascript is actually a good programming language.
I'm one of those who think Javascript is a good programming language (or at least I'd prefer it to any functional language).
Javascript is basically Scheme/Self with a C-based syntax[1][2], and both Scheme and Self are well regarded.
It has a bad reputation because of the terrible code people write using it in web browsers, but as languages go, it's pretty nice.
Browser/DOM APIs OTOH are historically pretty awful.
I suspect many of those who think it is terrible do so based n language snobbery, or they cannot separate the language from what it has been used for.
I may well be wrong, though - what actually makes it a bad language in your opinion?
That meme "Javascript is basically Scheme with a C based syntax" has been refuted so many times it's not even funny. Does it have a metacircular evaluator? Is it homoiconic? Does it have macros? Seriously, read SICP or some other Lisp book. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Remember, I was recruited to "do Scheme", which felt like bait and switch in light of the Java deal brewing by the time I joined Netscape. My interest in languages such as Self informed a subversive agenda re: the dumbed down mission to make "Java's kid brother", to have objects without classes. Likewise with first-class functions, which were inspired by Scheme but quite different in JS, especially JS 1.0.[1]
I presume you saw the word basically in my post? There's no doubt it is simplified, but that's a strength as well as a weakness.
But anyway:
A metascircle evaluator: https://github.com/mozilla/narcissus
It's not Homoiconic, and nor does it have macros - but a number of the languages the OP named as "good" languages lack both these features too.
I stand by my point: Javascript is a perfectly good language.