hi stats,
The R syntax mode in jamovi is a good start, but why bother and use either jamovi or jasp if one can not reproduce results with a new set of data, or publish script code for everyone to read.
you would need to ask some of our many users

but sure, these features are on the way.
wrt the separate projects; what you say is true, and it does grieve me that the projects aren't able to work together more.
however, there probably are more technical differences than you realise. for example, a goal which is important to us is that we provide a (native and integratable) web application. we're only a couple of months away from this goal, where as jasp would require more-or-less a rewrite to achieve the same thing.
however, this is less important than the philosophical differences.
jasp was written to promote bayesian analyses, where as my (and a few others) goal for the project was for it to be, additionally, an open platform for anyone to promote new statistical approaches. we found the goal to promote bayesian methods often overrode other goals, meaning we couldn't get the resources to develop other analyses, and in some cases we were outright blocked.
for us, it's very important that jamovi (and statistical software in general) is neutral, and doesn't have a strong agenda to promote one school of thought above another. i call this the separation of church and state

it's important there's an open playing field where ideas can battle it out, and history decides.
you can see this reflected in the jamovi library, where we host a diverse range of modules written by people of wildly different statistical persuasions. this, for me, is the essence of what we're on about, and is crucial for science.
before we left the jasp project, we did try and negotiate this 'separation of church and state'. i proposed we split the project into the platform and the analyses, and we did negotiate for quite a while, but were ultimately unsuccessful.
similarly, before we launched jamovi, we approached the jasp folks about joining us (we had a lot of features at that stage that they lacked ... i guess we still do). but again, we were unsuccessful.
so, i agree it's a shame, but sometimes this is just the way things pan out.
so to sum up:
a) the differences between the projects are non-trivial
b) we've tried hard to bridge the two projects, but so far haven't succeeded
c) we're hopeful we'll find a way that our two projects can work together in the future
d) but if we don't, that's ok.
jonathon