> Nobody would use it as it wouldn't have market share. That's why I added the part about forking and contributing back. If it becomes part of the standard off

> Nobody would use it as it wouldn't have market share. That's why I added the part about forking and contributing back. If it becomes part of the standard offering, then you don't have to worry about market share as much. And especially if you get a portable implementation then the IE and Chrome teams might decide to adapt it in, since you've lowered the engineering cost. > But that's besides the point. The behaviour is actually well defined There's a good reason to not use Javascript, if there's an option to use another language in the browser, that has nothing to do with JS's quality itself: context switching. Node.js is popular due in no small part to the fact that you have to use JS anyways. The purpose of GWT, as far as I'm aware, is to make it so you have Java as an option in the client.