> If Dart hasn't the chance to become a natively supported language, why would anyone pick it as a compile-to-JavaScript language, given there are so many superior options?
I don't think that the premise ("given there are so many superior options") is a non-controversial assertion. Which is probably why people who reject it would (and have been) picking it as a compile-to-JS language for web-facing projects.
The focus on compile-to-JS and JS interop for the web announced in the blog post makes Dart a more, rather than less, attractive language for web development, because it eases fears that taking full advantage of Dart might, in the near future, mean "works better on Chrome" rather than "targets the whole web", and because it means that Dart will work better with the universe of browser-targeted tools that aren't all written in Dart.
I don't think that the premise ("given there are so many superior options") is a non-controversial assertion. Which is probably why people who reject it would (and have been) picking it as a compile-to-JS language for web-facing projects.
The focus on compile-to-JS and JS interop for the web announced in the blog post makes Dart a more, rather than less, attractive language for web development, because it eases fears that taking full advantage of Dart might, in the near future, mean "works better on Chrome" rather than "targets the whole web", and because it means that Dart will work better with the universe of browser-targeted tools that aren't all written in Dart.