Google's Dart Becomes ECMA's Dart 190
mikejuk writes "Google's Dart just reached version 1.0, but now it seems that it has aspirations to being an international standard. The question is will this make any difference to the language's future? Given that Google effectively owns Dart, what advantage does standardization bring? The answer to what Google thinks it brings is indicated in the Chromium blog: 'The new standardization process is an important step towards a future where Dart runs natively in web browsers.' and this seems reasonable. A standard is something that would be required before other browser makers decided to fall in line and support native Dart. It is probably a necessary but far from sufficient condition, however, with Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla having other interests to further. Last but not least, having the backing of a standard might just encourage possible users to believe that the language won't sink if Google gets distracted with other projects and decides that Dart is dispensable. However, a strong open source development community capable of supporting Dart without Google's input would be a better reassurance. If you want to help, Google would like you to join the committee. After all, it still doesn't have a Vice Chair. So can we expect to see ECMA CoffeeScript or TypeScript in the near future? Probably not."
Okay, just so long... (Score:1)
...as it doesn't become a Dodge Dart. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
But what if Will Ferrell promised you a Google Dart for free?
(He's not lying)
Why would you do unpaid work for Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Go find an open source project that actually matters.
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Earlier versions of C# are also an ECMA standard, but nobody cares either way. It's like looking for a sales bullet point which doesn't make any practical difference.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Earlier versions of C# are also an ECMA standard, but nobody cares either way.
More than that: after the OOXML ECMA debacle, no one takes ECMA seriously anymore. Submitting a standard to EMCA now is like announcing that your blue-chip company is selling penny stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was ISO.
No, it was ECMA. ISO ratification came later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Earlier versions of C# are also an ECMA standard, but nobody cares either way. It's like looking for a sales bullet point which doesn't make any practical difference.
Agreed but this might be more Mircosoft's fault than ECMA's: .Net 2.0, like LINQ or async/await .Net 2,0 .Net standard only allows you to implement a limited subset and .Net and maybe not be sued for patent infringement by Microsoft. Nothing indicates Google i
- MS did not bother to submit to ECMA any of the nice things that happened after
- The MS "Community Promise" not to assert patents on the standard is somewhat convoluted and lacking. It obviously doesn't cover anything past
Thus the ECMA
Not enough... (Score:1)
Unless they can get Mozilla on board, It's just not enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Mozilla will never get on board because Brendan Eich still thinks JavaScript is a decent language. Yes, he's that fucking retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
So... what's wrong with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for my purposes lacking file access is something that makes it unusable. I can understand why they don't have it, being as it was designed to be used in web pages, and mixing in file access has unpleasant security implications...unless you design it very carefully. But it still makes it unusable for my purposes.
(Yes, a third party library could solve this problem. If I were interested enough. But I really prefer a compiled language over an interpreted one, even if I don't like C or C++.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more of an API issue than a language issue. Node.js offers a file system API, and the W3C File API has wide browser support.
A third-party library simply isn't an option, as any such library would depend on the underlying API.
Is it better than Javascript? (Score:2)
I do think the word standard should be better standardized.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me translate (Score:2)
"I don't much like Javascript" translates to "I know very little or nothing about Javascript and I'm unwilling to learn".
There - how about some honesty?
PS: Obligatory link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=douglas%20crockford&sm=3 [youtube.com]
Re:Let me translate (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it does not. It translates to "I know JavaScript rather well, but I also know several other languages", so I am capable of comparing things and seeing how many bad choices there are in JS language design.
OTOH, the people who praise JS the language tend to be the guys who learned it after C or PHP, and who memorized that "JavaScript is like Lisp with curly braces" and accepted on faith that Lisp is uber awesome, without understanding what it all actually means - if you ask, they'll usually give you some canned reply along the lines of "it has first-class functions!!!1!!", as if it is somehow remarkable for a PL in today's age.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not. It translates to "I know JavaScript rather well, but I also know several other languages", so I am capable of comparing things and seeing how many bad choices there are in JS language design.
However, when expressing such opinions on ./, it has become customary to omit what languages the poster is comparing the subject language against. Surely that only happens because the poster's great programming knowledge makes him forget that not everyone has similarly vast amount of experience and therefore is able to draw the same conclusions without presenting any actual comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
It is customary because virtually any other language in the same niche (dynamically typed "scripting" language) is sufficient to demonstrate the problems, except perhaps for PHP. Python, Ruby, Lua etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Lisp *is* quite awesome. It's got a few problems that turn me off to it, but had it become popular early, they would have been fixed. (Some of it's documentation. Some of it's name usage. Some of it's naming conventions. I hate names like *This-is-a-special-variable* which, including asterisks, IS a valid Lisp name. And whether the case is significant is a compiler switch.)
The problem with Lisp is that the libraries were never properly developed and standardized. JavaScript is something VERY di
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. The reason why Lisp comes up at all is that it's the poster child for higher-order functions and closures, so when people bring up this point with respect to JS, they say that it's "like Lisp" (or, sometimes, "like Scheme"). Of course, pretty much all mainstream languages are now "like Lisp" in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Many parts are ambiguous. E.g., prototype inheritance. It has a lot going for it, but nobody has been able to come up with an efficient way to implement it. Not to mention the problems that arise if you want to inherit methods from different ancestors. Python has a decent answer to that. So does Eiffel. Neither will work for prototypes, though.
P.S.: You *can* do prototypes in Python, but nobody does them. OTOH, it's a bit of extra work, so possibly if they were easier they would be more popular. Eq
this quote sums up the situation nicely (Score:1)
If you like Java and can’t get yourself to like JavaScript, you program Dart.
If you like Ruby and can’t get yourself to like JavaScript, you program CoffeeScript.
If you like JavaScript, you program JavaScript.
source [quirksmode.org]
Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Internet is NOT google. They, Google, came along and appropriated a lot.
And oh ueah, have yet to really show there is no partnership with others who might
do user tracking not through software but through hardware.
Listen: Google has NOT been in class with you!
Oh, and all you MicroSofties: don't bother to chime in. I'm calling a spade a spade
and you better not like it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They created their own replacement for NPAPI plugins, and got Adobe to prefer it over NPAPI. Now they're not going to support NPAPI anymore in a year. As a result, Linux Flash is now only going to work on their browser, and it hasn't really improved the situation in Chrome enough to justify the switch.
They didn't like other people's image formats, so they invented WebP, and got a lot of nickel-and-diming image hosters to start pressuring other browser vendors to support the format as if it's a proven tech..
Re: (Score:2)
HTTP2 not HTML2.
Re: (Score:2)
...even though HTML2 was coming along at the time anyway.
You read it here first: Google was intending to take over the Web a couple of years before it was even founded [ietf.org].
Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Every one of your points is partially correct, but just wrong enough to make it misleading, and the combined effect is very misleading.
They created their own replacement for NPAPI plugins, and got Adobe to prefer it over NPAPI. Now they're not going to support NPAPI anymore in a year. As a result, Linux Flash is now only going to work on their browser, and it hasn't really improved the situation in Chrome enough to justify the switch.
Google's PPAPI fixes numerous problems with NPAPI, particularly around security, because NPAPI plugins run in the same process as the browser making them a perfect vector for compromising the security of the browser, and indeed many of the major NPAPI plugins are so riddled with security problems that Google blacklisted them some time ago. And it is those same security concerns that are driving Google's decision to deprecate NPAPI completely. This is a good thing and it will make the web safer. In addition, NPAPI standardizes the API and should make it possible for a single plugin to work with multiple browsers. The end result will be not only safer for users, but should actually encourage the creation of plugins, since they'll be more widely usable.
With respect to Flash, Google didn't twist Adobe's arm. Adobe made its decisions for its own reasons; most likely because PPAPI is so much better to work with.
They didn't like other people's image formats, so they invented WebP, and got a lot of nickel-and-diming image hosters to start pressuring other browser vendors to support the format as if it's a proven tech... even though it's a "standard" that has shifted so much it's turned into such a kitchen sink of a format that everyone will basically have to use their implementation.
Again "didn't like" is misleading. The available image formats had serious deficiencies. Only GIF supported multi-frame animations, but did it in about the most inefficient way possible (storing each full frame, and compressing them individually with run-length encoding). JPEG works great for still images, but is far less efficient at compression than modern approaches, and also doesn't support layering, animations or transparency, and is limited to 24-bit color. JPEG2000 provided much more efficient compression, but lacked most everything else. PNG was pretty good at lossless stuff, but nothing else.
And once again, Google didn't twist anyone's arms. It created a better image format, started supporting and using it, and then put it through the standardization process. Your implication that it's somehow "unproved tech" is rather laughable. It's not like there's any new technology there at all, just a better repackaging of what we already knew. And it's not a "kitchen" sink format at all. It supports both lossy and lossless modes, with variable bit depths and includes animation (because it's actually based on VP8, a video format, this was very easy). It's very flexible which means it's somewhat complex, but it's actually simpler than the raft of standards it's positioned to replace.
They decided that Media Source Extensions were good enough that they could flip the switch on Youtube before other browsers were ready for it, thus rendering Firefox unable to play hi-def videos in HTML5 on Youtube.. though it was completely unnecessary to do so.
I don't actually know anything about that situation. However, I suspect that your description is no more accurate than the others.
They didn't like how long it was taking to make HTML2 so they invented SPDY. They then enabled it on the products that they popularized by using other people's standards, like Google Documents, thus forcing other browser vendors to support it or feel comparitively sluggish, even though HTML2 was coming along at the time anyway.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In late 2012 the IETF HTTP committee solicited proposals from the industry, in competition
Re: (Score:2)
Pepper is not a real API. PPAPI is essentially just a crapton of exposed inner Chromium guts.
This is not true. It is true that Pepper's model means the browser must implement the backing store used by the plugin, and that means there must be a stub API layer which the plugin uses to update that backing, and that the backing store and the stub layer are modeled on how Chrome works. But if you actually go look at the abstractions they're very sensible and minimal APIs, and it's hard to see what would be done differently by any other API that is attempting to do the same thing, and it's also clear tha
Here's to Willden! (Score:2)
Thank you for posting. I know that, while you are a GOOG employee, you're not any variation on Community Outreach, and posting here presumably represents your own personal time. I have been following the development of these technologies but not closely enough to have any appreciation of the issues the GP AC raised, and you have been wonderfully informative. Not that your normal standard is at all bad; you're often a source of fair commentary, and very good at both disclosing and setting aside your biases.
I
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds to me like you're downplaying concerns because you like Google... a lot.
I don't make any bones about that, I do like Google. A lot. It's not perfect, and I don't think I'll ever be truly comfortable with advertising as a primary revenue source (I'm quite happy to see non-ad revenues climbing), but I think the company creates a lot of great technology, and that it tries really hard to do the right things.
Enough to dismiss those concerns as "not liking people that work hard" and not caring about them the moment they don't align to the reality of PR.
I don't believe I ever said anything about "not liking people that work hard". And where did I dismiss any concerns because they don't align to the reality of PR? On a purely te
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We currently have one of the largest Dart code bases and six full-time Dart devs, and when we asked about being allowed to run Dart on a server OS, their evangelist insulted us. He recommended we run Ubuntu on our servers since they decided Dart should require gcc 4.6+ and glibc 2.14 or newer. He said using Debian, SUSE, CentOS, or Red Hat is "what old people do." The kids running that company just don't damn get it.
Of course, don't take my word on it. Look at how they just don't get it in the bug comme
Re: (Score:2)
So, people who actually want to get some work done are "old". Charming.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. This is what you get when you adopt unproven technology.
*Real* old people use the stuff that were brought to market 10+ years ago.
Re: Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (Score:1)
You should give-up on Dart now. I talked to several of the Google guys at Devoxx after the 1.0 announcement and they didn't have a damn clue. They actually believed that demanding I run Ubuntu on our servers is reasonable. I'm not going to convert our developer, QA, staging and production systems from Red Hat, that we have used for almost 15 years, just to run Dart. No, I instead banned Dart in the company. They're ducking morans(sic) for demanding we throw away 15 years of successful and productive use o
Re: Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (Score:1)
Was that Seth? When I talked to him, he just didn't have the experience to comprehend why someone would want to run a stable OS. This stupidity is going to kill Dart. That is assuming it can ever recover from the damage already done.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is gaining way too much power over what you over the internet.
I remember when the internet was pretty open, until Microsoft got their grubby hands on it with IE. At first everyone was happy because Microsoft was giving away a decent web browser for free. But then they got greedy... What did they do again? Ah right, they created their own "standard" language that was only adopted by their web browser.
How quickly people forget the past.
A web monopoly is never good, even if people think Google is friendly. Remember, Microsoft was once held in as high-ish regard is Google
Google should review the linked story (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the number of ads on that "I Programmer" page exceeds the limit Google specifies in their AdSense guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. Ghostery has a field day with that page.
Correcting a language's deficiencies (Score:3)
So, here is the high level idea (despite the danger of inviting Prolog zombies I'll be using its syntax for the Horn Clause):
The Idea
Parallelism spawns independent computations.
The Horn Clause:
m(A,B,C):-x(A),y(B),z(C).
expresses AND parallelism spawning 3 independent computations.
The Horn Clause document:
m(A):-x(A). m(A):-y(A). m(A):-z(A).
expresses OR parallelism spawning 3 independent computations.
In an operating system, parallel computations are scheduled for execution, allocating resources according to priorities.
There are also computations which cannot be scheduled until the computations upon which they depend complete. The Horn Clause document:
m(A,B,C):-m(A),m(B),m(C). m(A):-x(A). m(A):-y(A). m(A):-z(A).
expresses 3 AND parallel computations, each depending on 3 independent OR parallel computations.
This kind of data-dependency suspension of scheduling is also handled by operating systems.
By focusing on these constructs:
a radical reduction in semantic complexity can be realized.
Tools
Seymour Cray once said that much of engineering creativity comes from using old tools in never-before intended ways. The same is true of anything. New understanding of a thing's use is a way to create a new tool. Indeed, even when creating a new thing-in-itself as a tool (the ordinary means of creating a new tool), what comes first is its desired use. It is harmful to think about the fact that your hammer can be used as a paper-weight when you are pounding a nail into a piece of wood with a rock.
With that in mind, let us properly-use the Horn Clause:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway I'll proceed with something worth talking about when you said: "But maybe your quantum tabled resolution (or whatever I should call that) doesn't have any of the semantic and practical problems that Prolog and co. have. I'd be intrigued to hear about the nitty-gritty details i
I'm torn (Score:2)
I want to say I like Dart. I have translated some of my javascript stuff over to see how it compares. In many ways it is a big improvement. However, it still does things I hate about javascript. They are things that other people love like "you don't have to add semicolons but can but don't have to" or "functions in curly brackets with functions in curly brackets with functions... ad nauseam". They are all things I find to make code too difficult to read. I like the idea of the VM being in the browser
Does it replace the DOM? (Score:3, Interesting)
People keep coming up with alternatives to javascript. Everything from whole languages that compile down to javascript, to building new languages into the browser, to javascript supersets, to plugins that makes your browser run compiled code. Not a single one of these caught on. The REAL problem is the DOM, the CSS and how they interact with each other. Javascript is a bad language, but it's not awful. What makes web development awful is the DOM and CSS with all its crazy and cross-browser incompatibilities. Why no one tries to replace THAT? I'm almost implementing myself a new api that runs on top of a 100% width/height canvas tag for christ sake.
I'm not familiar with the Qt but QML ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QML [wikipedia.org] ) looks pretty good to me. Why can't browsers just implement that? Oh right, because it was not developed by google/m$/apple/mozilla so they can't guide it to the directions they want. Noooo, you have to have a completely new language that no one knows.
If they want to replace javascript so much why don't they just take the python or ruby runtime, bundle it to the browser, sandbox it and add DOM mappings?
Re: (Score:2)
Sandboxing the python runtime, say, means breaking most of the packages python developers take for granted, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Because most of the packages that do something useful involve interaction with the OS.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people have a near religious approach about what a browser should do, and what it should not. For those guys, the browser is a piece of code that render a "document" ; this is by no mean a way to implement GUIs. The other part of the world is fighting hard to implement GUIs in browsers, and making sure that their GUIS work well in every browser ! Sadly, the standardization groups have many of the first category, and few of the second. And franckly, that really sucks.
Why not aknowledging that a browser,
Standardize a VM interface instead? (Score:1)
We see new languages all the time, most of them don't stand the test of time or are supplanted by others as time goes on -- but at this point there is a ton of industry experience in supporting a standardized Virtual Machine language / architecture / (whatever you want to call it). There's Sun/Oracle's JVM, along with several other implementations of this VM interface. The JVM will support any number of languages that target it. Microsoft has done this as well with their CLR (Common Language Runtime) as par
Parrot (Score:2)
Already exists and is slowly moving forward with almost zero help. Supports many languages already.
http://www.parrot.org/ [parrot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Can C be compiled to Parrot bytecode?
(i.e. does it support raw data and function pointers and unions?)
If no, then you're not talking about the same thing as GP.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then we are talking about C, which is highly portable already. It's technical power combined with the build systems and support libraries are what make it a pain, not the language itself. If you think compacting it into a bytecode would help it, I think not... and C is already so close to a portable assembly you are not hiding a great deal by such a conversion. If you want the power of C but the ease of a VM like java, then you need to make a massive portable library that must be bundled with the com
Re: (Score:2)
The original context was a VM running in the browser - the entire point here is to have a cross-platform redistributable format that can be translated to efficient native code on the target machine. The reason why I brought up C is because, if a VM can handle it (and tailcalls), it can handle practically any other language. A good example is PNaCl, which uses LLVM bitcode for such a portable low-level format.
Granted, C source code could itself be such a format. But I think it's a tad too high-level in place
Re: (Score:2)
Bad portability of C has created all these "solutions" which are less about C itself than the surrounding system. There needs to be more of a standardized runtime than what we have today and PNaCL does address this. I'm still quite skeptical of PNaCl; it's only significant contribution is addressing the base library issue... which it does with a really small focus because it exists for only 1 purpose.
I've also not been a fan of how performance freaks (like myself) will sacrifice security and stability for
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the paper about NaCl and PNaCl? There's no VM there in a traditional sense - it's not a JIT or an interpreter. It precompiles code to native, and runs that native code directly, using various creative hardware hacks to sandbox it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of asm.js [asmjs.org] ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's too primitive to be a foundation for a proper VM. Try doing something involving heavy pointer arithmetic in it, for example.
Not to mention that it is a horribly ugly hack.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is doing that as well - that's what their Portable Native Client project is about: LLVM bitcode sandboxed in a browser.
ECMA CoffeeScript = Javascript (Score:1)
Not for websites. (Score:2)
As far as i'm concerned, websites have little business using Javascript to start with. Now they want to add more? Sounds like Java to me which is for making applications, not websites.
If your site needs native performance then write a native application.
ECMA is Microsoft really (Score:2)
Re:OK, I'll bite (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.bing.com/search?q=google+dart [bing.com]
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of people don't like how Google is handling the integration of all their services, including social media. Certainly I'm not a fan of the whole "real name" thing, having been online for so long I know how that story ends. But what to do? They work in a world where this is how to succeed. For some things like social media real names work. For passionate discourse there are still forums where you can use your "handle" like in days of yore.
At least here is not another example of Microsoft's "stacked [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:2)
You got a stalker too? Welcome to the club, mine comes and goes, and has followed me all over the net. It is one of the reasons why i think ACs should be banned or at the very least make it trivial for users to block AC posts in the formatting. After all if they are too damned lazy to spend a whole 3 minutes making an account, can be as anon (by filling it in with BS) as the AC but would make them stand by their posts? then they are trolls and not worth wasting time with.
How does having an AC stalker affe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their image search seems to be better at giving you what you are looking for which probably ties to
I agree with this. Bing is a lot better than Google for image search; the results are more relevant but also the GUI is better.
Lately I found out that the maps are also better on Bing. The new Google maps is retarded; when I search for something nearby like a Starbucks it shows some random results that are pretty far, and when I try to get directions between two cities the first option they give is a flight... When I want to fly from one city to another I go on Expedia or Delta; what are the odds that I wou
Re: (Score:2)
One does not need to be a Microsoft shill to see...
Okay, so you're beholden to them for some reason other than material compensation. Thanks for making that clear.
Idiots have posted more clever versions of this lame accusation countless times over the last 14 years. Is your life that pathetic that you find it entertaining to be an incompetent copycat?
This being said, it's interesting to see that the level of bitching against IT companies on Slashdot is basically proportional to the median employee tenure in those companies (Microsoft = 4 years, Apple = 2 years, Google = 1 year, Amazon = 0.8 year). While a lot of people dream of working at Google, the company actually
Re: (Score:3)
Over the last 10 years, Microsoft has hired more people than Google's current headcount.
People who bring up growth to explain high turnover at Google are like those Apple marketing magicians who sweep their shrinking market share under the carpet and pretend that what matters is that average users spend more time using iPhones than Androids on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters to who? What matters to Apple -- a profit seeking entity --is how much money it makes selling iPhones. Which currently is more than the rest of the cell phone industry combined.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/14/apple- [appleinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How did "market share" help Dell, HP, Gateway, and the other titans of the PC industry? How are they doing now?
Funny that you bring this up. Sales of PC from Dell and HP are actually improving while Macbooks sales are dwindling. Look at IDC latest numbers.
As Mark Twain would say: the reports of the death of PC have been greatly exaggerated.
Re: OK, I'll bite (Score:2)
I never said that the PC is dead. But chasing volume on low margin products is not a recipe for success. Dell went private at a value that was 1/20th of Apple's market cap, HP's PC business is so bad that even when they were the number one PC maker, they were trying to get rid of
Re: (Score:2)
There is no doubt that Apple is immensely successful, but don't get confused by market cap numbers. When Dell went private, they had assets valued around 45-50 billions, for a market cap of about half that value. Apple is currently close to the 500 billions market cap but has less than half that in assets (closer to 1/3).
The market cap number is meaningless because it does not bring money to the company once the IPO is completed. The only impact of the share price is that shareholders who want to increase t
Re: OK, I'll bite (Score:2)
Okay, let's ignore market cap in determining how well a company is doing and let's look at profit.
I've already posted a link showing despite Apple's "market share", it's profit in the cell phone business is higher than every other vendor combined. But let's look at the profitability of Apple compared to those companies who chased after market share in the PC industry by cutting prices......
Fortune 500 2013
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/
Apple - $41.73 billion
Microsoft - $16.
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers don't make sense. If there are 4.3 billions cell phone subscribers worldwide and people change their phone every 18 months, this would mean that almost 2 billion new phones are sold every year; yet the cell phone industry has yet to ship 1 billion units in any given year (they hover in the 750-800 million units). Given the current production level, your 4.3 subscribers cannot replace their device more than once every 4 years, which is basically on par with PC evergreening.
The cell phone industr
Re: OK, I'll bite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dart is Google's attempt to replace Javascript. They're doing this because Javascript is a shitty language.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dart is Google's attempt to replace Javascript. They're doing this because Javascript is a shitty language.
They're doing this because:
- they are going to try to monetize it.
- they can't get developers to write stuff for ChromiumOS if it only runs on ChromiumOS.
- it will natively search and report on your web pages.
- their 'Go' language didn't go anywhere.
- Google has an inherent need to have some sort of impact on (and therefore control over) whatever anyone does on the internet.
- releasing version 1.0 means a Google product is finally out of perpetual beta.
Re: (Score:2)
- they can't get developers to write stuff for ChromiumOS if it only runs on ChromiumOS.
- their 'Go' language didn't go anywhere.
These two pretty much cover it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It needs better software development tools for Go and Dart! Visual Studio is a really good development for Windows! Android Studio is a really good development tool for Android!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: OK, I'll bite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Any sign of them attempting to make Dart Chromium-only or somehow favored by Chromium's architecture in a way that will freeze out IE and FF? Any dependence on the mothership implied by either a dart-language program or support for dart in a browser or elsewhere?
Re: (Score:1)
However, do you have any evidence to the effect that 'Dart' advances Google's control except by making 'web apps' better and/or easier?
Their products are the only ones supporting it?
It compiles to Javascript. Are you saying other browsers don't support Javascript?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not seeing the lock-in here, though they haven't stirred enough buzz to get it more widely adopted.
Again, I hardly suspect them of altruism; but they don't seem to think that they have the power to push a 'Google only' JS replacement, and so would rathe
Malware (Score:1)
That and Javascripts has so many holes in it, considering Google's solution is about the same, I would agree to dump the project to the community where it may be more trusted. Part of the problem is Google has abused open source and continues to do so. And as the story mentions Google isn't to be trusted, they seem to have nothing but a mad scientist scheme behind everything they do.
Re:OK, I'll bite (Score:4, Funny)
No... Dart is a shitty language. javascript is a web scripting language, albeit one that lacks the OOP syntactic sugar Java and C# weenies enjoy circle jerking over.
I was going to learn Spanish a couple of years back but instead I invented a whole new language called 'Spanglish' that is basically English with some Spanish words. Can't believe that people are still speaking Spanish. I'm going to have myself a nerdy little tantrum about that any second now...
Re:OK, I'll bite (Score:5, Insightful)
Javascript is a shitty language. It has full object support, just based on prototypes instead of something sane. I do not know what it is about web "developers" that makes them like shitty languages like PHP and javascript, but they are. Aside from very poorly definitions of "standard" functions, both have so many side effects and scoping issues that it's a wonder anything ever got written with them. Not that anyone writes stuff based on javascript's "standard" library. No, you NEED to use a third party cross platform lib like jquery because the language is so poorly implemented too.
Javascript was an accident. It wasn't and isn't particularly suited to ANY task, let alone the web. People have hacked together some decent solutions, but the fact remains that js's design has been an anchor around web browsers and web development in general.
Not saying dart is any good either, but that doesn't make javascript good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Javascript is a fine language. Javascript mostly gets a bad rap from the in browser DOM API (or lack of (thanks web standard politics)); and the fact that developer's only really learn VERY basic Javascript and spend all of their time manipulating the shitty browser DOM. I mean no one would like python, C, Java, etc if all you ever did with it was basic XML manipulation.
Go checkout Nodejs or some other non-browser implementation of Javascript. It's a really remarkable language.
P.S. saying it's the way it
Re: (Score:2)
Implicit semicolons. '5' + 3 gives '53' whereas '5' - 3 gives 2. I tried to include the famous Javascript truth table. Look it up. Including it in the post just triggered the junk filter, but it's hilarious. Javascript manages to be chock full of wtf even without the DOM at all. I always wished that Python would show up in the browser at some point. Once apon a time, the idea of genuinely novel scripting languages for web pages actually seemed plausible. (Remember vbscript web pages?) I guess there
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know what it is about web "developers" that makes them like shitty languages like PHP and javascript...
As one of these developers, I would like to hear your suggestions on what language I should use instead of Javascript to modify web content without forcing a page reload. Should I port all my stuff to Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
JS is like Perl. You *can* write clean code in Perl. You *can* write clean code in Javascript.
But both languages made it very easy to write a huge mess if you don't know what you're doing.
Crockford et al have come up with a bunch of nice conventions which, if you follow them, facilitate clean JS code. But browsers don't enforce those conventions; most programmers don't get exposed to them, and they end up writing horrible code.
There's a sweet spot between a language being too restrictive, and being so loose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Javascript is a glorious, expressive and straightforward language. Unfortunately, it also allows shitty developers to write shitty code.
You could have fun with this:
C is a glorious, expressive and straightforward language. Unfortunately, it also allows shitty developers to write shitty code.
PHP is a glorious, expressive and straightforward language. Unfortunately, it also allows shitty developers to write shitty code.
Python is a glorious, expressive and straightforward language. Unfortunately, it also allows shitty developers to write shitty code.
C# is a glorious, expressive and straightforward language. Unfortunately, it also allows sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
But seriously, I'm a full-time Dart developer, and Google knew damn well that was a bad name for SEO, but they picked it anyway. Fuck them for making searching for help with their language impossible with their own search engine. I thought the asinine name Go taught them a lesson, but instead they decide to fuck over all of us again by not allowing us to search. Every single damn day I get angry when I can't search for help with the language.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)