Seems like two different discussions going on here, on the one hand you have core language design such as not having typeclasses, and it's fair to say it's the

Seems like two different discussions going on here, on the one hand you have core language design such as not having typeclasses, and it's fair to say it's the core team's prerogative to organise these decisions as they want. On the other hand there's no good argument for intentionally restricting language features from certain users, it's not in anyone's interest. I am a big fan of safe languages that use a formalism to stop you _accidentally_ modifying shared state or hitting a runtime error but why should the designers care about me making a bad architectural design, i.e. including some JavaScript modules in an elm package? If I misuse it and write a bad application that's my problem, you can't protect bad developers from themselves because they'll just use other tools. If I publish a library with JavaScript, okay show a warning to the user, have red scary text on the package description page if you want. But let the users decide how they want to build their applications. The argument that this would block a clear path to WASM is bogus, they've already shown that breaking tons of libraries doesn't bother them.