upvote
I'm looking for the intention behind it. They chose two compilation targets. That made things harder. They had a reason. That's what I'm asking about.

None of your reasons ("preference, syntax, pragmatism") fully explain the situation without more context. Whose preference? What syntax are users even seeing? Why is it pragmatic?

Compilation targets are generally chosen based on performance characteristics and where the code is actually expected to be run. If you're not expecting the code to run on the client, then there's no reason to use JavaScript. V8 performance is better when single-threaded, but then why use the actor model?

When I go to the ClojureScript website, they have a whole section about why they chose JavaScript as a compilation target[0]. Notably, it mentions the word "client" multiple times.

[0] https://clojurescript.org/about/rationale

reply
It's a general purpose language (as mentioned several times) and compiling to js eg. for lustre webapps (elm-ish). I've contributed to the js compiler once only and can't find a way to use more gleam at my job but I'd say having failsafe actor based erlang backend + ssr + rich strongly typed reactive frontend all in one language is really cool.

It seems your stuck on js-only for ui and somehow rejecting compile to js. If you don't wanna use it fine but I'm not sure what you're looking for in this thread...

reply
deleted
reply