I appreciate the perspective, but I think you're mischaracterizing what Hologram is about. We're not web developers who "can only code in web languages" - we're Elixir developers who've deliberately chosen Elixir for its technical merits (fault tolerance, Actor model, pattern matching, etc.) and want to leverage that investment across our entire stack.

Your hammer/nail analogy actually supports the case for Hologram: if Elixir is genuinely a superior tool for building systems, why shouldn't we extend that tool to work client-side too?

Native development absolutely has its place, and for many use cases it's the right choice. But there are legitimate scenarios where you want the reach and deployment characteristics of the web platform combined with client-side performance. That's exactly what Hologram provides - it transpiles your Elixir UI code to JavaScript that runs in the browser, giving you instant interactions without server roundtrips while keeping the language and paradigms you prefer.

Binary distribution isn't technically hard in 2025, you're right. But "not technically hard" isn't the same as "optimal for every use case." Sometimes you genuinely want instant deployment, universal accessibility, and the ability to update your application without user intervention. Different tools for different jobs.

I'd actually love to hear what you think about Hologram's transpilation approach specifically - writing Elixir UI code that gets converted to JavaScript for client-side execution. Does that change the equation at all from your perspective?

Where does this Elixir lang rate in terms of performance against say Rust or Go? I noticed its run through a vm but also recommends itself for embedded?