> It turns out that even if you accept "Python is great and JavaScript sucks" that "Python compiled to JavaScript" ends up even worse than JavaScript.

Clearly, there are people that disagree with this value judgement, and the existence of that disagreement is an existence proof that Python for frontend is, in fact, a choice people can make, even if it is one you find unattractive.

I also have gotten DMs on Reddit from companies looking for devs since I commented on a thread 10 years ago about an obscure toy language: it doesn't mean thats a reasonable choice for technology.

I think theres legitimate reasons to compile Python to JS, but "JS is bad" can't be one of them, since you still have JS that you have to worry about. It makes sense for codesharing with server code or preexisting business logic.

Over the years I've debugged js compiled from various languages, and it's seriously a terrible experience: however bad you think debugging handwritten js is, reading and debugging generated js is strictly worse (and you will have to)

> however crazy you think handwritten js is, generated js is just obviously worse to try to read (and you will have to)

Or...maybe I won’t; I’ve used plenty of compile-to-JS languages (including what starts as “js” with JSX and modern features but gets compiled to plain, and more widely supported, JS), and I spend as much time reading and debugging JS in its compiled form as I do reading and and debugging .NET or Python bytecode instead of source, which is none.