And when I'll see a Python code running on my browser rendering on a Canvas as the Emscriten QT port does... I'll make myself blind with a fork in front of the developer of such a beast, yelling: "How the f--- am I supposed to use this now?!"

DOM and "native" browser interfaces means full accessibility support. Don't take shortcuts because you don't understand JavaScript.

The only language thing I miss in JavaScript is a better functional approach. But that's what transpilers are for.

And transpiled Javascript is clearer than Python how?

Are we really comparing Python to JavaScript "as they are"? What make you choose a language instead of another one is the environment. Would you use a library-less python? Is Node.js cool because it's JavaScript, or it's cool for the miriad of libraries and traction it has?

And BTW, I'm not saying a transpiled JS is clearer than Python, I'm saying that a functional approach to classes (Haskell way) is impossible in JS as it is, and that transpilers (think of Row, LiveScript...) solve that problem de-sugaring it. Nothing more than that.

I love Python, I love JS. But would you love Python if you were locked down to Python 2? JavaScript must be backward compatible to keep its "web" role. Please stop confusing languages with environment.

You missed the point. The complaint was about UI accessibility of HTML versus QT-rendered-in-an-opaque-canvas. Hence yuchi suggesting he'd blind himself with a fork in front of the developers to drive the point home.

it still might be possible with things like LLJS that can communicate back to "normal" js code.