MarvinHannott

Shouldn't ```fromInteger``` rather be a constructor? That would actually work. But yes, it might be a good idea since Java interfaces can do that.

> In my comprehension, it won't work since the goal is to instantiate any class that implements Serializable. If fromInteger is implemented as a constructor of A, it's still impossible...

@lrhn Wow, thanks for explaining my own request better than I did 🙂. I'd like to respond to some of your points, many of which I didn't think so deeply...

@mateusfccp That's actually a cool use case. Alternatively, you could always use the `!` operator...

>``` > extension on String { > final bool isBlank() => this is String && this.isNotEmpty; > } > ``` > > The final is there so it is not...

There is another unexpected problem extension methods cause, but this is also one they could, with @rrousselGit proposal, fix. The problem is that extension methods only exist when the generic...

@lrhn > A secondary issue is that concurrency is not supported when compiling to JavaScript. But isn't that what service workers should be capable of?

@ramsestom >As a developper, working with Isolates is not only painful, it is also highly ineffective when you have to copy (serialise/deserialise) a large collection of complex objects between isolates...

> it isn't cheap when you have large data to copy (parsing a large json file and returning the result, decoding an image...) and even if the copy time might...

> @lrhn About the whole compile to JS thing. > > Shared memory multithreading is compatible with JS, because it can compile to single threaded code. It basically won't break...