Thanks, that's a satisfying justification.
Phoenix dependency:
I feel like your answer here is justifying the choice to use Phoenix, but my question was about the opposite. I would expect a project like this to use Phoenix in the first place, so I was wondering why you mentioned it as if it was something regrettable that you needed to be apologetic for.
Elixir syntax coverage:
Cool, sounds like the minimum possible infection. It does seem a little daunting knowing that any random library code that I transitively call from an Action will need to be transpile-able. If I call a utility function that uses a library that uses a library that implements some small-but-relevent part of itself as a NIF without me knowing, I assume that will fail to transpile and I'll be locked out from using that utility function until I swap out the dependency of a dependency with something transpiler-friendly. But thinking more about it, that probably doesn't come up much if Actions are just focused on simple operations. Out of curiosity, have you done any compatibility testing with Hologram's ability to correctly transpile and run code from major libraries? It might be good to publish a metric about this some day, like "Able to transpile 99.92% of the top 10,000 packages on Hex" with a little graph of how the number has improved over time or something. Many more important things first though, I'm sure.
> When using unsupported syntax, you'll get specific error messages in the JS console
In the JS console? Like at runtime? I don't just get them as build errors?
Bundle size and performance:
Yeah that's totally reasonable.