The comment immediately before rtfeldman's references patching the compiler for this project, which is an implied necessity if js code is to continue to be used. It's essentially a soft-fork, and that is what rtfeldman is objecting to.
Thanks, fair enough although rtfeldman appears to be responding to spookeylukey about divergent design goals, while it's norpan who is talking about maintaining a locally patched compiler.
I still see no objections to maintaining a fork or local patch from rtfeldman. Just "if you go against our explicit design goals don't expect us to want to merge it upstream for first-class support".
TBH a locally patched compiler sounds like not a huge deal to me. I have lived with locally patched GCCs before :-)
But maybe I'm unusual. I surprised someone, once, when they found some code not working and I suggested they look at their compiler source for the cause. Their response: "Wow, I hadn't ever thought of the compiler as something that might have a bug, let alone read and modify it".
IT was norpan and spookeylukey talking about patching the compiler together, and rtfeldman jumping in with references to PAST discussions of design goals with spookeylukey.
