Keep in mind that JS has changed quite a bit in the years that have passed and that certain aspects ('eval' in particular) was excluded from the project.
Though, it may be an interesting starting point for anybody, who wants to play around with compiling JS.
If you’re interested in what it takes to compile dynamic languages, why did you leave out such a notable dynamic language feature?
By definition, in a compiler, translation from symbols to code happens on the beforehand. But eval needs to do this at runtime. This means that to compile a program a la "eval(input_string)" the output program whould need to contain the entire compiler, which gets used to convert the eval_input before running.
So in practice you strapped a kind of interpreter to the output program. This is often inefficient and hackish, and thus it is more desirable to just not have a eval feature.
But if you're going to start cutting out the dynamic features, and those you don't think aren't desirable, then why are you challenging yourself to write a compiler language for a dynamic language in the first place? You could cut out all these troublesome features if you just picked a static language.
Heck, you don't even particularly need reflection, but eval even less so.
I doubt you'd find much use of eval in the top 100 most popular Python projects for example.
So it's not exactly that defining a feature.