You're arguing the wrong thing. You're arguing a semantics debate about whether an extension is JS. I'm arguing that it allows you to use JS features instead of

You're arguing the wrong thing. You're arguing a semantics debate about whether an extension is JS. I'm arguing that it allows you to use JS features instead of a custom template system. In the semantics debate you want to have I think it is JS because it all becomes JS bytecode and it's just nested function calls in the end, but that's subjective. If you want to be pedantic it's a JS extension, but in the future it could be JS if the spec is merged into engines not the compilers. JS is an umbrella term, you're arguing it's not Ecmascript, okay, I never said that. I said it's JS, and you want to have a tussle about it instead of comparing templating systems. Also you're very rude.