This is getting more heated than I care for, so I'm going to bow out. As for your last sentence, just read the README for elmx:
> Non-recursive interpolation: currently Elm code interpolated between { and } is not recursive (i.e. is a regular grammar not a CFG). This means that you cannot include curly brackets inside curly brackets.
This is of course just a limitation of the implementation, not the idea.
No I'm not, and I'm tired of 'the familiarity argument'.
> elmx feels like it just complicates the view code with virtually no benefit.
See my other comments in this thread - I don't agree - JSX being more closely related to the DOM you're building is a significant benefit.
Also empirically in React land, JSX is vastly more popular than not using it.
> The result won't be understood by elm-format.
If ESLint can understand JSX, then elm-format can understand elmx.
> It's something extra that has to be learned by any other developer trying to work on the code
That dev already knows DOM (or will have to do so via their devtools) if they're a front-end dev.
(And React seems to have proven that's not an issue).
> they'll still have to understand the pure Elm code that the elmx compiles to as well
I don't experience this in React. I never think about the 'create dom'-ish JS calls it's translating to.
> Plus it has limitations like not being able to nest code interpolations.
Unless I misunderstand you, JSX can absolutely do this.