I’m relatively new to the community (just logging into the forums for the first time right now, though I’ve been active on GitHub, and occasionally IRC, for the last year or so), but maybe I can shed some light on the “readable output” thing.
With traditional compilation targets, the overall product that the output of the compilation is fitting into is generally under the control of the author choosing the aforementioned tool doing the compiling: if you’re writing a C program, you’re maybe consuming one or two huge, monolithic libraries; and chances are, you’re contributing little-to-nothing back upstream to the OSS community. That is, if you decide to switch to, say, OCaml, for some portion of your code, you’ve nobody (at least in spirit) to answer to except yourself and your team of collaborators.
git filter-branch the “weird”, “freaky”, neckbeard-code entirely out of the branch you submit the pull-request against.
:P Everything in the ecosystem they’re building seems focused on that:
bsb fares extremely weak when compared to Dune; but is strongly designed to cohabitate with multiple other build-systems existing in the same project.
tl;dr: JS devs were hurt, bad, by their last relationship with a compile-to-JS tool. They’re often extremely sensitive about a tool demanding holistic ownership of their projects, contributors, and mindspace.
tl;dr 2: it’s all about how it’s being marketed. to nobody’s surprise.