Slashdot Mirror


Google Ports Box2D Demo To Dart

mikejuk writes with an excerpt from an article at i-programmer about a neat graphics demo written in Dart: "One of the difficulties in getting a new computer language accepted by a wider audience is that there is doubt that it is real. Is it a toy language that just proves a concept or can it do real work? In the case of Dart, which is Google's replacement for JavaScript, the development is speeding ahead at a rate that is impressive but worrying. To prove that Dart is already a language that can be used, we now have a port of the well known 2D physics engine Box2D, the one Angry Birds uses, to Dart." Box2D has previously been ported to Javascript. Source is available at Google Code (under the Apache license). Note that you'll need Chromium to run the demos.

132 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Not again! by TechGuys · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Note that you'll need Chromium to run the demos

    As a web developer and after all the nuisance old IE's gave me and other web developers back in the day, this is really what's stupid with Chromium and Google's approach. They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser. I seriously thought we would had been past that and the old IE's were the last browsers that didn't adhere to standards. IE9 is now fully standards compliant, and what does Google do? Oh yes, break the web AGAIN.

    This isn't the only time they're introduced non-standards compliant features, either. Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again, only works in Chrome. But with all the security headaches. It seems like Google is going out of it's way to copy all the stupid mistakes Microsoft made. I guess Google is at the same point now than Microsoft was back then - antitrust issues, breaking web standards and constant flow of news of how they're done wrong again. It's like Microsoft all again.

    1. Re:Not again! by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So how does a company create something better than the standards? Or are you perhaps implying that standards once set are the best for ever and ever? It's not as if Google is DROPPING support for Javascript. That would be...outrageously stupid. What exactly is your problem here?

    2. Re:Not again! by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. We just got past the point where IE6 can finally be considered dead and now Google tries to make exactly the same problem. No web developer will be insane enough to target a Google-only platform given their recent history of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

      --
      -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
    3. Re:Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of Chrome/Chromium, and that misunderstanding is blinding you to the very obvious differences between what Google is doing with Chromium (NaCl, Dart, SPDY) and what Microsoft did with IE. If you start instead from the right premise, and realize that everything Google has done has been open-sourced, you start to get a better appreciation for what's really going on.

    4. Re:Not again! by Korin43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know how web standards work right? It goes something like this:

      1. A bunch of people come up with ideas that would be cool to have in browsers.
      2. Some of them add those things to browsers.
      3. After we figure out which approach works / is most acceptable to all browser makers, it becomes a standard.

      For some reason it's a common belief that it works the other way around (make standard -> implement standard), but anyone know hows anything about programming can tell you why setting everything in stone and then writing the software is a terrible idea.

    5. Re:Not again! by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Google isn't claiming that this is the new standard. If they did, they would just drop support for Javascript

      2. Insisting on a consensus before every new technological upgrade would be frustratingly slow and the whole process can be held back by one individual. That's not how technology improves.

    6. Re:Not again! by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      So you'd prefer that all innovation be done by committee?

      There is very little resemblance between what Google is doing here and what Microsoft did back then, and if you really believe that these situations are similar, I suspect you misunderstand Google's goals behind Chrome/Chromium.

    7. Re:Not again! by walterbyrd · · Score: 1, Troll

      The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again.

      Microsoft does not just "introduce" standards, MS strong arms everybody to adopt those MS proprietary standards. MS does not do this to improve technology, but to preserve their abusive monopoly. MS does not play nice with anybody else, and never has.

      There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away.

      OOXML was ten years ago? Silverlight was ten years ago?

      I am glad to see MS "introduce" all they standards they want, as long as they standards are fully open; but they never are.

    8. Re:Not again! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Please name one internet standard that is not based on existing "non-standard" software.

    9. Re:Not again! by Intropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when you submit your new idea to the standard committee the very first thing they will ask for is demonstration of existing practice. Standards committees do not design new features. They observe existing practices and extensions and adopt them, possibly with some modification. To get something standardized you must first make it, work out the kinks, show why it's helpful, and get people to use it in practice. Only then will a standards committee consider it for the next version.

    10. Re:Not again! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      There is very little resemblance between what Google is doing here and what Microsoft did back then

      No, its pretty much 100% identical. Both companies added features unique to their browser using their seemingly infinite resources (as far as browser development is concerned) to add features to their browser that other browsers had in the hopes that you will use their products (The OS for MS, Google app for Google) instead of their competition. While the specifics themselves are different, its the same play from the same playbook.

      I suspect you misunderstand Google's goals behind Chrome/Chromium.

      I would have to say you have that backwards. For the reasons I already stated, it seems pretty clear to me that you've got some Google colored beer googles on. I'm not bitching about what they are doing, but I didn't bitch about Microsoft either until it was way to late. However, I am smart enough to know that its silly to pretend Google is doing anything different than MS. What they do in the future will matter more than what they do today though.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:Not again! by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      ...Okay, and? Where's the issue with that, exactly?

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    12. Re:Not again! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ...anyone know hows anything about programming can tell you why setting everything in stone and then writing the software is a terrible idea.

      Okay, pretend I know nothing of programming and explain to me why this is a bad idea.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If what Google is doing, trying to fix the god awful morass that javascript has evolved into, and what Microsoft did during the browser wars is 100% identical, then what Microsoft did was ethical, moral, brave and admirable.

    14. Re:Not again! by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      There's a large difference tho.
      Google has the public opinion still on it's side. MS had lost it way before they started ActiveX.

      And technically - Google's stuff is usually slightly better and more open (because yeah, no matter what you hear, some MS still is actually genuinely awesome.Surface, Kinnect, Singularity, etc, are actually splendid, some of which are open too)

      And that is why Google is currently a danger for the free web we still have today.

    15. Re:Not again! by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with it. Do you imply Microsoft dropped javascript back in the days? Of course, they did not.

      It's called embrace, extend, extinguish. You did not remember the lesson with IE?

    16. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again

      And Mozilla's NPAPI plugins....

      But of course thats different, right?

    17. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As long as they release all the specs and dont act anticompetitively (constantly change the standard and strongarm vendors to comply), that wouldnt be a problem at all.

      IIRC, a lot of the HTML5 stuff was based on stuff people had started doing outside the spec since HTML 4 was so limited. What, is all progress supposed to cease until the W3C gets its collective act together and makes an executive decision about what the web wants?

    18. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Neither embracing nor extending are the evil part, and Google doesnt have a history of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

    19. Re:Not again! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      IE9 is now fully standards compliant

      No, it isn't.
      As a web developer I was really looking forward to IE9 so I could finally have a single set of HTML templates for all browsers.
      Sadly, IE9 only meant I have to maintain yet another set of browser-specific hacks.

      Not to say chrome doesn't have it's faults, but they're nowhere near as bad as IE's were, and in many ways still are.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    20. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You do realize that BSD license lets you take the source, modify it, and tack your own proprietary license on top of it, right?

      Its not viral, like GPL.

    21. Re:Not again! by peppepz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, they did extend Linux as Android, and then started claiming that Android was "Linux on the desktop".

      And then
      java: dalvik <=> j++
      javascript: dart <=> vbscript
      html: nacl <=> activex
      opengl: renderscript <=> directx

      Now I'm not claiming that Google is the same as Microsoft, I don't think this. But honestly, I still have some concerns.

    22. Re:Not again! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Set in stone? Really, so all the browsers did not update themselves to meet the standards as they evolved?

      Well IE lagged behind, and is now playing catchup but they now all implement the published standards even though they did not before, and mostly implement the core of what will be HTML5

      They all implemented what they thought the standard would be or should be, and then modified their system to be closer to the actual standard and it was worked out ... which is how it should work ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    23. Re:Not again! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      IIRC, a lot of the HTML5 stuff was based on stuff people had started doing outside the spec since HTML 4 was so limited. What, is all progress supposed to cease until the W3C gets its collective act together and makes an executive decision about what the web wants?

      They still haven't finalized it. Don't plan to until at least 2014, last I read.

    24. Re:Not again! by MartinG · · Score: 1

      This was more of a problem in the past because nobody had anybody elses source code, so cross pollination of code didn't happen and competing implementations were more often incompatible.

      While I still don't like like random new things appearing outside the standards without good reason, doing it in an open source application is much less of a problem.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    25. Re:Not again! by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Java: MS claimed their incompatible implemention _is_ Java. Google claims Dalvik is _not_ Java VM and uses same old Java language and standard javac from JDK for first stage of compilation.

      MS called their incompatible implementation with a name subtly different than Java. Google calls the language you use to develop applications for Android "Java", as you can check yourself by going to the very front page of Android's developer website. The result is the same for developers, they have to learn Java and Java* and programs written for Java won't run on virtual machines for Java*.

      Javascript: Please show me MS's VBScript to JS compiler.

      OpenGL: You mean that same RenderScript that is basically a framework on top of OpenGL ES?

      The fact that Dart and RenderScript are currently implemented over existing technologies is a technical detail that, I deem, has no relevance over this discussion. Thousands of companies and coders are investing in Javascript today, because it is seen as the cross platform, vendor neutral language for the intelligence of web pages. There is an established ongoing process of standardization of the language. If Dart is to replace Javascript, people will have to replay those investments both in software and training once again for the new, Google-controlled language. In this I see no difference with what MS could have obtained if they tried to use their market power to replace Javascript with VBScript (and succeeded).
      The same things can be said for RenderScript.

    26. Re:Not again! by makomk · · Score: 1

      everything Google has done has been open-sourced

      Just because it's open sourced doesn't mean it's of any use to other browsers. NaCl is tied to a huge Chrome-specific set of APIs that are deeply integrated into the browser and probably not practical for anyone else to implement, Dart is part of their JavaScript VM which no-one else uses and again the JavaScript VM and browser are so deeply integrated no-one else could use it, and SPDY is pretty much the same and in addition is undocumented and requires modified SSL libraries.

    27. Re:Not again! by makomk · · Score: 1

      NaCl and Dart are both fundamentally unacceptable to at least Firefox though - they consider them basically impossible to implement. Google is going ahead with them anyway. I don't think any of the other browser manufacturers are any more willing either.

    28. Re:Not again! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Depends on your perspective, as to if they were Mistakes for Microsoft. Yes there were other factors, like their near total owner ship position on the Desktop, something Google kinda enjoys today with search, but whatever Microsoft did it worked in sense.

      IE became the web browser, many websites took the attitude other browsers need bother with a GET. Microsoft's position on the desktop was if anything cemented because you more or less needed a Microsoft platform to use 80% of the WWW. It got them a footing into the back room, previously owned by UNIX and Apache, for NT and IIS, by users wanting to take advantage of their client. An entire generation of developers learned Microsoft technologies something that they still trade on today. The security problems, pain they caused people who were supporting platforms not theirs, etc; well none of that really hurt them in terms of dollars and market share did it?

      Where it fits in with "don't be evil" I am not rightly sure, but rest assured many at Microsoft do not view the moves made during that period as mistakes, and there are those at Google who are jealous.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    29. Re:Not again! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Google's model seems to be Invent, Entrap, Abandon. Well for anything outside of Search and E-mail anyway. We are all still wondering how this is supposed to be profitable, and when they will drop Droid.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    30. Re:Not again! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Wrong. MS "standards" locked you into Windows. Google wants everyone to use dart. No one will ever be as evil as MS.

    31. Re:Not again! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between M$' "standards" and dart. Dart is intended to be used by everyone and doesn't lock you into one browser. Where as an M$' "standard" only runs on Windows in order to lock you into their own ecosystem.

      It only runs on Chromium (not even Chrome) because it's a work in progress so obviously no one else is going to support it.

      I'm actually going to have to believe the astroturf accusations or assume you're an idiot for not comprehending it's not ready for everyone to use.

    32. Re:Not again! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Dart is separate to JavaScript so it's not really extending shit nor does it lock you into anything. The intention is everyone uses it unlike MS standards that lock you into their ecosystem.

    33. Re:Not again! by biodata · · Score: 1
      Maybe you're tolling, I'm not sure, but here goes.

      There is something called 'requirements' - stuff people want to do, and there is something called 'solutions' - software that does stuff. As soon as human being starts to use a piece of software, it changes their requirements, because they have new ideas of stuff they want to do. Hence it is impossible to define the 'true' requirements before the software exists, because the true requirements don't exist until the software does, and vice versa. Software and requirements both change over time in a mutually dependent way.

      --
      Korma: Good
    34. Re:Not again! by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      That, plus the fact that Dart compiles to Javascript.

      Indeed, what is the problem?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    35. Re:Not again! by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Name had nothing to do with this - they claimed it to be "Java compatible" when it was in fact not, that was the point of the lawsuit.

      It was the post I was replying to who claimed it was a question of naming. Now you're agreeing with me, it is a question of lack of compatibility, which is required to use the Java trademark. Google has the same problem.

      Yes, because "Java" is Java language plus Java VM and Java Runtime Environment. Java language is not bound together with VM and RE,

      The Java language is strictly connected with the VM and therefore the runtime environment. Check section 12 of the Java Language Specification.

      About the fact thtat the development of Javascript as a language is slow: this is not true for Javascript's bindings to HTML features, which is what is important today. Nobody cares if the Javascript language hasn't some feature-of-the-day that is seen as a must-have among computer science circles. Developers are interested in the fact that their HTML pages can obtain position and sensors information from devices, can record audio, can draw vector graphics and so on. Which is becoming possible now at a pace that I don't recall of having seen in the past.
      The value of Javascript is not in the elegance of the language, it's in its universal adoption.

      Really, basing your assertions that Google is just like MS on this stuff doesn't hold water.

      Please note my original statement:

      Now I'm not claiming that Google is the same as Microsoft, I don't think this.

    36. Re:Not again! by DrXym · · Score: 1
      The problem here is that Google is introducing a bunch of technologies - WebM, WebP, SPDY, Dart, Nacl, PNacl etc. without submitting to standards bodies, without forming concensus from other browser makers to agree or disagree to use the tech and basically using the weight of their entire company to foist these standards onto the web whether they are ready for it or not.

      What they're doing is not really that different from when Microsoft introduced VBScript or attempted to steamroller Office Open XML through approval. Google are subverting the web, introducing half-baked "standards" left and right which other browsers have no possibility of keeping up with and using it as a wedge to pretend that chrome is therefore the better browser for it. Even if Google usually drop some source code to cover their development that doesn't mean it's easy or necessarily desirable to integrate it with other browsers.

    37. Re:Not again! by anonymov · · Score: 1

      without submitting to standards bodies, without forming concensus from other browser makers to agree or disagree to use the tech and basically using the weight of their entire company to foist these standards onto the web whether they are ready for it or not

      Does somebody do that? All major features were introduced independently and codified later. It's a race between browsers to see who can invent the next big thing - MS, Mozilla, Google, Apple, Opera, everyone introduces new features and implements interesting features introduced by others every release.

      Sure, not every feature sticks - nobody flocks to Chrome to check out WebP, and nobody flocks to FF to check out Javascript 1.8.5.

      You make it sound like Google has browser monopoly and can pull their weight because of that, when in fact it's all out competition between browser vendors.

    38. Re:Not again! by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      NaCl and Dart are both fundamentally unacceptable to at least Firefox though - they consider them basically impossible to implement. Google is going ahead with them anyway. I don't think any of the other browser manufacturers are any more willing either.

      So they fail. What's the problem?

      Google wants to convince other people to implement something they like, so they created their own implementation to demonstrate it. How else do you expect them to convince anyone? Or should they just leave things how they are and get off your lawn?

    39. Re:Not again! by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      in the hopes that you will use their products (The OS for MS, Google app for Google) instead of their competition

      That tells me you misunderstand Google's goals with respect to Chrome. Why do you believe that increased usage of Chrome implies increased usage of (any) Google property?

      To put this another way, it is not necessary for other web browsers to "fail" or lose market share to Chrome for Chrome to be a success for Google. Once you understand why that is, you will understand why drawing a parallel to IE is a flawed exercise.

    40. Re:Not again! by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      They may have crap mistakes in them that people will have to support for years to come, and a hundred million web developers will curse your hubris writing standards for stuff you don't understand and didn't check was okay.

      Or, as is often the case, no one will support the standard.

    41. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You mean like Linus Extended Minix as Linux? And for the record, android uses a Linux kernel, and is technically as much Linux as Debian and CentOS.

    42. Re:Not again! by peppepz · · Score: 1
      Debian and CentOS run plain Linux userspace applications, that run unmodified on both OSes or on every other Linux distribution. Android only runs heavily specialized Android applications that won't run on Linux; and even its "kernelspace" is incompatible with Linux, as many Android device drivers cannot be used on Linux unmodified due to the wakelock code.

      Debian and CentOS merge the enhancements they do to the kernel and to the userspace into upstream projects, whereas Google developers publicly stated that they do not have any interest in doing so.

    43. Re:Not again! by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Google wants to use Java trademark and wants everyone to see their implementation as The Java?

      No, they provide an extended subset of the Java language that results in their applications not being compatible with the Java platform. Which is what Microsoft had done at the time. People were aware that J++ applications would only run on Windows.

      It's deficiencies/conventions of ES that leave people dissatisfied and make them develop stuff like CoffeeScript or GWT.

      I thought the point of GWT was to allow developers of Java applications to keep using their skills and tools on both sides (server / client) of web applications. That is, not to force them to learn a new programming language.

      There are high-level frameworks in plain Javascript too, e.g. the highly successful JQuery.

      Yes, to claim you're implementing Java you need JVM and JRE and you need them compliant. Why do you need them to use Java the language?

      To call it "Java language". The java language specification only covers some specific core classes.

      You don't think this, you're just concerned and try hard to find parallels. Right.

      I just try to observe facts and build my own opinion with no reverential respect towards any of the actors involved.

    44. Re:Not again! by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

      As a web developer and after all the nuisance old IE's gave me and other web developers back in the day, this is really what's stupid with Chromium and Google's approach. They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser. I seriously thought we would had been past that and the old IE's were the last browsers that didn't adhere to standards. IE9 is now fully standards compliant, and what does Google do? Oh yes, break the web AGAIN.

      You are aware JavaScript started out as a proprietary extension to Netscape, right?

    45. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Flash, Java, and the other NPAPI plugins dont do that in firefox? Silly me, I thought thats where all those viruses came from.

    46. Re:Not again! by anonymov · · Score: 1

      Actually, much to the delight of *ahem* blackhat security researchers, they do (in other browsers too). It's just they're not intended to.

    47. Re:Not again! by anonymov · · Score: 1

      Well, IIRC, there even were a few real .jpg trojans in the wild, but of course no one would say it is _as bad as ActiveX_, duh.

      Still, when relatively low-complexity pieces of software like image decoders get "execute arbitrary code" exploits once in a while, it's not surprising that complex VMs get a dozen every year, so yeah, "eventually download and run unsandboxed native code from random websites" is a common undocumented feature for plugins, popular malware vector and a good reason to install NoScript/FlashBlock/turn on "run plugins on demand"/etc.

    48. Re:Not again! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Java, PDF, and Flash all are executable binary formats. Their primary purpose is not to display images, but to run code.

      You do realize that Java, PDF, and Flash are implemented in activeX in IE, right? NPAPI IS Mozilla's ActiveX.

      Im pretty sure for the longest time (possibly even now) that none of that code was sandboxed, either, unless you're using chrome (and techincally, I believe Flash in chrome uses Pepper, not NPAPI).

    49. Re:Not again! by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Thanks I know how standardisation works. It works through consensus. It works through producing an implementation neutral description of some functionality which is desirable for all browsers to have. It works by stakeholders agreeing to the standard in their common interests. It works from them designating people to steward the standard, beating out any inconsistencies or ambiguities that could lead to incompatibility and incremental improvements over time.

      It does not work when one company, the predominant one unilaterally declares some feature to be a standard and proceeds to deploy that "standard" in a product without consensus, review or anything else. And that is exactly what Google is doing. The closest they have gotten to consensus is WebM and even that managed to hobble one of the most useful new features of HTML5. They've gotten nowhere with their other techs but as they're Google they'll be able to force things through whatever other people may want or not. In this matter they are just as dangerous as Microsoft ever were in their attempts to subvert the web, possibly more so.

    50. Re:Not again! by makomk · · Score: 1

      So they fail. What's the problem?

      They have a huge guaranteed user - Google themselves. Think about how many people use GMail, for example...

    51. Re:Not again! by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      They have a huge guaranteed user - Google themselves. Think about how many people use GMail, for example...

      But they're don't own all of the browsers. If this extension is a big enough deal to start moving people to Chrome, then *obviously they were right* and other browsers need to start supporting it.

    52. Re:Not again! by makomk · · Score: 1

      But they're don't own all of the browsers. If this extension is a big enough deal to start moving people to Chrome, then *obviously they were right* and other browsers need to start supporting it.

      Not really. If they start using it, regardless of its actual merits it'll render any browser that doesn't support it a second-class citizen, relegated to slower badly machine-converted JavaScript versions of their pages or even reduced functionality.

  2. Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser.

    From Dart's wikipedia page:

    Google will offer a cross compiler that compiles Dart to ECMAScript 3 on the fly, for compatibility with non-Dart browsers.

    And, in fact, dartc already cross compiles Dart code to plain Javascript. Once it's integrated into browsers, use it or don't use it.

    It's like Microsoft all again.

    Right, that's a stretch. You conveniently cherry pick details here. For example, NaCl is released under a BSD license with source code readily available. Are you saying the same was true of ActiveX since it's launch?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by bhagwad · · Score: 2

      There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon.

      But your problem is already solved then. So what's the fuss over?

    2. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      But why would anyone start to use this? Google has a huge problem with quickly abandoning projects. They just throw something at wall and see if it sticks

      I have to agree with you on this point. Google does that all the time.

    3. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by melted · · Score: 1

      >> And, in fact, dartc already cross compiles Dart code to plain Javascript

      Last I checked, it compiled "hello world" into a 17K line Javascript program. Not exactly optimal.

    4. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seems like they've worked on it since the last time you checked: http://www.dartlang.org/support/faq.html#hello-world-js-size

    5. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, but the ones that work they stick with ...

      It's called real world testing, rather than plow on with a project when it is not working in the real world they move on to another idea ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ActiveX was an "open" standard in the sense that Netscape could have implemented it if they wanted to ..... on Windows only. That's because the bulk of the APIs you needed to use to write an ActiveX control were just the regular Win32 APIs. Netscape had a policy of supporting not just Windows but all operating systems. That's why Microsoft made ActiveX - they saw weakness (other platforms gui frameworks kind of sucked at the time, so pandering to them restricted developers a lot), and they attempted to exploit it (by allowing developers to build better apps that were Windows only).

      Was ActiveX "evil"? Well, it was certainly platform specific. Making things like this NOT platform specific is a ton of work, NaCL uses techniques and technologies that didn't exist back then, and they had no incentives to do it. Whether it was wrong to do depends on your views on the importance of features vs platform independence.

      NaCL is different to ActiveX in some really important, fundamental ways. Firstly, the APIs it exposes to native code are really small: just Pepper, which provides you with the real basics along with some well accepted cross-platform APIs like OpenGL. Importantly there's no GUI toolkit. If you want buttons and sliders, you need to use HTML, not Win32/GTK/Cocoa. In fact NaCL will prevent you from accessing these APIs entirely!

      Secondly, it's got a strong focus on security. NaCL code has security properties that are provable using static analysis. It also runs in a sandbox for a second level of defence. This is very different to ActiveX, which relied entirely on Authenticode, and suffered some serious UI problems that made it vulnerable (modal dialog boxes).

      Thirdly, everything you need to implement NaCL is open source, so other browser makers can (and maybe will) adopt it. The core runtime and execution technologies are all open source, with the bulk of the integration work being joining Pepper to your browser. Mozilla already supports Pepper and I guess other browsers will too soon (maybe not IE). It really wasn't possible for Netscape to support ActiveX for all their users in the 90s, but it's quite feasible for Apple, Microsoft, MozCorp and Opera to support all their users with NaCL, especially now the dependency on x86 has been broken.

    7. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by makomk · · Score: 1

      So the net result is basically that users of Chrome on Google services will get the faster Dart version, whereas users of other web browsers will get a slower version that's been compiled to JavaScript badly. What's more, Google has very little incentive to optimise either the JavaScript version or Chrome's JavaScript support at that point, leaving other websites with a choice: use Dart and get decent performance on Chrome and sucky performance elsewhere, or use plain JavaScript and get decent performance elsewhere but sucky performance on Chome.

      (Mozilla seem to reckon that they couldn't actually implement Dart, and Microsoft have shown no interest in doing so at all.)

    8. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by anonymov · · Score: 3, Informative

      Net result of any new extension is that users of the browser implementing it get a faster and better version. If it turns out to be a good idea other browsers follow and everyone ends with a net benefit.

      Canvas, for example, was Apple's extension in WebKit, year or two later other engines caught up to it too.

      XHR was created by MS for Outlook Web Access, with other browsers implementing it in a year or two after that, and W3C draft standard appearing only 5 or 6 years later.

      That's how innovation worked in browsers for a dozen years.

    9. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by makomk · · Score: 1

      Net result of any new extension is that users of the browser implementing it get a faster and better version.

      Except they don't necessarily. Canvas and XHR were popular because they were relatively small features that could be added incrementally without disturbing anything else, though XHR wasn't actually entirely compatible between browsers initially precisely because it was a Microsoft-specific feature implemented in a Microsoft-specific way. Dart requires rewriting or replacing the entire JavaScript engine of the browser in question, including its interface to the DOM and every other feature like Canvas or XHR - it basically touches everything. NaCl requires implementing a completely new interface in the browser with its own Chrome-specific NaCl equivalents of the DOM, Canvas, XHR, OpenGL, input handling and more, none of which were designed with implementation by other browsers in mind and all of which probably require bug-for-bug compatibility.

    10. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by anonymov · · Score: 1

      Why should it _replace_ JS engine? Sometimes I feel people forgot that <script> element has language="" attribute there for a reason.

      Scripting engine shouldn't be hard coupled with the main application. Exposing DOM should be as easy as creating new FFI wrappers for the same old objects JS engine calls on.

      Google guys seems to have it right, if they managed to include a new scripting layer without disturbing their old V8.

      Of course what I (and I'm sure I'm not only one) really wish for would be not a single new language here or there, but a pluggable architecture for new scripting engines.

      Now that could make all browsers want to catch up - but, sadly, there's no chance in hell that would happen in reality, what with even ES5 only just now becoming closer to a practically accepted standard and still lot of people with older browsers who need shims for ES5 support.

    11. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by makomk · · Score: 1

      Why should it _replace_ JS engine? Sometimes I feel people forgot that <script> element has language="" attribute there for a reason.

      It doesn't have to, but the alternative is to bloat the browser with two independent JavaScript interpreters each with their own interface to the DOM and everything. Also, I think that may require some hairy code to allow objects to from one to be accessed in the other.

      Google guys seems to have it right, if they managed to include a new scripting layer without disturbing their old V8.

      I'm pretty sure that they designed it to be integrated heavily with V8 at the very least, if not an actual part of it. Dart was even created by the same person as V8.

    12. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by anonymov · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's hard, but doable. Re: bloat, it depends. Lua, for example, is around 100kB. Even if bindings take twice or four times that, it's an insignificant blip - just compare to single xul.dll's 16Mb or opera.dll's 15 or chrome.dll's 29. And all of those are just _parts_ of the application (well, except Opera, there it seems to be all there is + 1Mb of application exe)

      A side note, per my observations, many would be happy to see Lua embedded in browsers, there's already Emscripten and there was a NaCl Lua bindings project.

      Browser vendors instead compete in painting over JS with (not-)fancy(-enough) JITs and hanging new object model bindings on it. That makes me a little sad.

    13. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by GrievousMistake · · Score: 1

      Tying NaCl to a specific architecture was a very bad move in the first place, and PNaCl doesn't help a lot.
      LLVM bitcode isn't intended to be a platform-independent transport of code - it isn't frozen, so you'll have to tie yourself to a specific LLVM version, while LLVM is still improving a lot with each release.
      Neither is it very portable - it isn't endian independent, and it reflects details of the ABI, which means you can't even portably call C functions. It's really just a compiler IR.

      See also e.g. this post.

      I can certainly see reasons that you'd want to tie a VM to the browser instead of being stuck with ECMAScript for every situation, but you need to bring a real, portable VM to the table. LLVM isn't it, and the idea of putting architecture dependent binaries on the web is patently ridiculous, as should be obvious just from the time NaCl spent as x86 only. Imagine if web site owners had to recompile their site for every new architecture that became supported. "This site is best viewed on a x86"

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
    14. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by melted · · Score: 1

      That's still 34 lines longer than it needs to be. :-)

    15. Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching by makomk · · Score: 1

      Lua, for example, is around 100kB. Even if bindings take twice or four times that, it's an insignificant blip - just compare to single xul.dll's 16Mb or opera.dll's 15 or chrome.dll's 29.

      On the other hand, it looks like the current Dart implementation depends on V8 which is about 4 MB just by itself.

  3. TechGuys is an MS Shill. by teh31337one · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here we go again!

    Every time I click on a news story involving Google, I'm all but positive that the first post will be:

    a) Posted with a 2.5+ million UID

    b) Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live

    c) Negative towards Google

    Here we go again. Welcome back CmdrPony / InsightIn140Bytes / DCTech. Happy shilling. Hope you karma manages to hold out for more than 4 days this time.

    1. Re:TechGuys is an MS Shill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, Google is the new Microsoft!

    2. Re:TechGuys is an MS Shill. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live

      Pro tip: subscribers get to see stories ahead of time. You don't have to be a shill to write a long first post.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:TechGuys is an MS Shill. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Does he look like a subscriber to you?

  4. Situation: there are n+1 competing standards ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Funny

    The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again. There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away. There really isn't any need to broke the web again. And how to create something better? Work out a standard of it.

    What a great idea! I'll hop to it right now!

    Situation: there are n+1 competing standards.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. The JS port by LDoggg_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article mentions, box2d-js. The more current port is box2dweb: http://code.google.com/p/box2dweb/

    --

    "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  6. Nice Deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    But why would anyone start to use this?

    That's called a deflection. You stated a point, I rebutted your point and -- instead of acknowledging me or providing more details to contradict my point -- you deflect it into a totally unrelated topic (everything faces user adoption problems these days).

    I'm done with you ...

  7. Re:But will they abandon it by LordThyGod · · Score: 1

    Lmao. You forgot the smiley!

  8. Other uses for Dart? by Skapare · · Score: 2

    Is this a programming language with an existing shell script interpreter style implementation, too? If so, then I might have actual use for it. Basically, that means a light-weight interpreter (light enough to use it during system boot up to run rc scripts, so not more bloated than bash in its basic form) could be named in the script like having "#!/bin/dart" on the first line, and it would execute the file however it is designed to run them. I'm not talking about using in a browser here. For extended features beyond shell script code, it should have modules (in binary .so files or in Dart) that it can load.

    I'm just starting to use Lua for this kind of thing now. Lua was intended as an embedded language, but has a shell script style interpreter which is pretty much a nice example of simple embedding. If they put Dart in a browser, and implemented it cleanly in the process, then a shell script embedding should be trivial. Have they done that?

    I'd be more impressed if they make Dart do all these kinds of things (including directly run in a web server) than by implementing Box2D in it. That would mean a clear separation of execution from environment, something that Javascript only partially succeeded doing. Something that Lua did succeed at, but I still want a C-like syntax class for.

    Oh, and I would definitely love to have a clean integer-only typing available, something I consider a major problem with Javascript.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Other uses for Dart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you can run it from the command line via the Dart VM without translating it to Javascript. Haven't tried #!/bin/dart style invocation though - but being open source someone is probably working towards it if it doesn't yet support it.

      I've used Dart a bit and it really is a great language - not so different that it takes ages to learn, but IMHO a big improvement on both Java and Javascript.

    2. Re:Other uses for Dart? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can run it from the command line via the Dart VM without translating it to Javascript. Haven't tried #!/bin/dart style invocation though - but being open source someone is probably working towards it if it doesn't yet support it.

      I've used Dart a bit and it really is a great language - not so different that it takes ages to learn, but IMHO a big improvement on both Java and Javascript.

      It should not be hard. Someone already familiar with how the Dart native runtime engine works (I'm not one of those, so excuse me if that term to describe it is technically wrong, but I think you probably know what I am referring to) should be able to whip it out in a day or so and clean it up in a few weeks. They just need to set up a few pieces: the common language interpreter, a minimal library where needed, and something to make sure the hash-bang in line one is treated as a comment that can supply parameters. That should include the basic things a shell script can do, with a subset of system functions to do filesystem stuff directly (no need to run the "mkdir" command, for example ... just call mkdir() via a mkdir() stub), all integrated into a single executable that can be built as a fully linked static executable. Then additional functionality can be added on via some mechanism to load that functionality as needed (either explicit or implied), either from a .so binary (where the functionality would be better done in C, such as the remainder of syscalls) or in Dart itself. But the important point that needs to be understood and done correctly is that all the functionality needed to do what system rc scripts do should be doable as the system is starting up even before stuff like "ldconfig" is run (how about implement "ldconfig" in Dart as a proof of concept). The ultimate test would be to implement the "init" program itself in Dart, running entirely in a statically linked executable interpreter that is no larger than (my arbitrarily chosen size of) 4MB (and that's generous).

      I have a program I wrote in C that gets executed by the Linux kernel as PID 1 (from initramfs). It is statically linked so no libraries are needed. It looks at all the block devices to find one that appears to most likely contain the root filesystem it wants to run (if the UUID is what it is looking for, the first to have an exact UUID match is it). That program then pivots that filesystem to "/" and runs "/sbin/init" to start the system up. This is all done by having my executable, and maybe a /dev/console device, in the initramfs image. What I want to be able to do is implement that same thing in Dart as a script file, and having the dart interpreter executable file there, and no other files or libraries, and have it do the same thing. Do that and then I will know we have a winner. This does not mean that "system is fully up" stuff has to use the same thing. But this "mini-Dart" should still be usable at all times, too.

      The project also needs a way for interested parties to start communicating with them W/O having to subscribe to a mailing list. Mailing lists are "so 2nd millennium". I quit mailing lists years ago.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    3. Re:Other uses for Dart? by qxcv · · Score: 1

      Is this a programming language with an existing shell script interpreter style implementation, too?

      An interpreted language bundled with a REPL? I'm not sure if Dart has a REPL, but it would be pretty trivial to implement. Fortunately the Dart specification *does* support shebangs (so #!/usr/bin/dart), check out the relevant section here (they call it a script tag). Here's an excerpt:

      A library may optionally begin with a script tag, which can be used to identify the interpreter of the script to whatever computing environment the script is embedded in. A script tag begins with the characters #! and ends at the end of the line. Any characters after #! are ignored by the Dart implementation.

      --
      "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    4. Re:Other uses for Dart? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Is this a programming language with an existing shell script interpreter style implementation, too?

      An interpreted language bundled with a REPL? I'm not sure if Dart has a REPL, but it would be pretty trivial to implement. Fortunately the Dart specification *does* support shebangs (so #!/usr/bin/dart), check out the relevant section here (they call it a script tag). Here's an excerpt:

      A library may optionally begin with a script tag, which can be used to identify the interpreter of the script to whatever computing environment the script is embedded in. A script tag begins with the characters #! and ends at the end of the line. Any characters after #! are ignored by the Dart implementation.

      I don't understand why they need the #! script tag for a library. How about for a main script? Just put that on a "hello world" example, make it executable, and see if it runs.

      So where's the source code to build /usr/bin/dart from? I don't see a download link on their website.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    5. Re:Other uses for Dart? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      OMG! The language documentation does not show it has any way to do division (much less what kind of division it would do if it has such an operator).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    6. Re:Other uses for Dart? by qxcv · · Score: 1

      The source is on their Google Code page. It seems a bit sill that they don't provide a link to it on the front page of their website. Also, I have a feeling that the word "library" refers to a standalone Dart source file rather than a body of code which you link against and call from your own application. From the spec overview:

      Dart programs are organized in a modular fashion into units called libraries. Libraries are units of encapsulation and may be mutually recursive.

      --
      "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    7. Re:Other uses for Dart? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      So, Google has invented "a method to obscure documentation"? Have they patented it?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    8. Re:Other uses for Dart? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I give up. Too much obscurity. Back to Lua and Pike.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  9. Re:Micro$oft Shill by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The "shill" accusations flying around on Slashdot lately are getting out of control. Any position orthogonal to the common convention is accused, trashed, and filtered off the site.

  10. Re:But will they abandon it by rrossman2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Are you talking about the same Bing that came pre-installed as the default (un-changeable without rooting) search option on my wife's Verizon Samsung Fascinate? The same Bing that when I type something into the browser to search expecting google results like my unbranded Samsung Galaxy S does (nearly the same damn phone), I instead get Bing results that have nearly NO RELEVANCE to what I was searching for?

    And that's the gods honest truth.

    An example...
    "teamhacksung ics build 14 galaxy s"
    This update for build 14 was just done yesterday.

    First result on Google: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=21498197#post21498197
    Exactly what I wanted

    First result on Bing: http://galaxy-s.t-mobile.com/samsung-galaxy-s2?cm_mmc_o=Vzbp+mwzygt*VAygtzlw*VyBpAgf+mA55Byf*VyBpAgf+mA55Byf
    Second result: http://www.hdtechvideo.com/forum/index.php?threads/rom-teamhacksungs-ics-port-build-14.48/
    Third result: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=20794402
    Right forum and thread, but takes me to page 716, where as google takes me to the FIRST page where the info, downloads, etc are.

    And this is just one example.. I've had TONS that were way worse with Bing not returning even CLOSE to what I was looking for, and google returning exactly what I wanted in the first few results (typically the first few are so close in terms to each other any one of them would work)

  11. Re:But will they abandon it by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

    ha I guess I shouldn't have actually read the thread before copying/pasting the google link ;) That takes you to the LAST page (since that's where I was.. on build 13 and decided to read the posts on 14 before I update). Oh well.. at least you end up at the beginning or end, and not randomly in the middle!

  12. Re:Micro$oft Shill by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So pointing out that MS screwed up in the past and using concrete examples that another company is making the same mistake is somehow MS propaganda? MS did some crap (works, Vista, IE 7, patent crap threatening without stating exactly what is being infringed, etc), they did some good things (Win 95-8 (for it's day was really cool if not exactly that stable), Win 7, .Ne/VS I'd put in that list), but regardless saying someone other than MS is being stupid doesn't make you an MS shill.

  13. Re:Micro$oft Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's 2012. Can we please stop writing "Micro$oft"? It's really, really juvenile at this point.

  14. Re:Micro$oft Shill by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you're right.

    Nobody ever claimed such.

    However, just because someone has reached a conclusion you don't like doesn't make them mentally deranged or a paid astroturfer. If you believe a position to be wrong, it's so much more persuasive to respond to the points one by one rather than shoo them off with personal attacks, which only serves to please those who already agreed with you.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  15. Is JavaScript really that nice?? by Wattos · · Score: 2

    Am I really the only one on Slashdot who dislikes JavaScript? Every time I have to work with JS, I feel like shooting myself in the head -> Little IDE support, no type safety, no compile phase... These things make it extremely hard to work on a large application base. In fact, at work we have a custom Java -> JavaScript compiler, which makes things a lot more manageable. Most of the bugs we get in our issue tracker are related to the web interface which is still written in plain JavaScript.

    I actually commend google on trying to fix this part of the web. I am not sure if this is the correct approach, but we have to start somewhere.

    1. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by dingen · · Score: 2

      Most people working with Javascript don't really know the language that well. It's easy to get frustrated that way, because JS's C-like syntax makes you think it's a C-like language, which actually it isn't.

      There is a lot wrong with JS, nobody is denying that. But it also has its nice elements. And since every device on the planet is equipped with a browser running Javascript these days, the language really is here to stay. So instead of hating it, its a lot more constructive to try and understand it, so you can avoid JS's bad parts and make JS's good qualities work for you.

      I highly recommend Douglas Crockford's video lectures on Javascript if you have to work with JS and want to really get to know the language. It helps a lot to understand why JS is the way it is and how to get the most out of it without going insane.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by BZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Little IDE support is helped by building IDEs, not coming up with a new language that has even less IDE support.

      Dart doesn't do type safety by default. There have been proposals to add optional type annotations of the sort Dart _does_ have to JS... and they were shot down by certain members of the JS standards committee, last I checked. Don't recall what the stance of Google's representatives on it was, but they weren't the ones pushing it.

      As far as a compile phase goes, Dart doesn't have one either unless you're cross-compiling it to JavaScript. You just load your Dart code directly in the browser, which then compiles it. That's what browsers do with JS too.

      So ignoring for the moment whether these things are good or not, I don't see Dart making much of an improvement over JS here, except in the type-safety department, where Google didn't exactly try to improve JS in the first place.

    3. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      JavaScript is really very simple to use.

      Build an object model from your data. Merge your model with your view. Bind your model, view and dat source with PubSub events. Controllers update the model, subscribed views then update to match and the data source gets an async update in the background.

      Was that hard or complicated?

      This is a known and solved architecture that can be applied to DOM views, Canvas views or SVG views.

      If you want to get fancy you can add support to filter, sort or mutate your data. You can add animations to visualize this or not. You can use the data to describe a form, a blog, a bitmap, a chart a tax return or a movie review. It's all pretty much the same.

      You can store your data in a DB and access it via REST or cgi or SOAP/WSDL or a socket connection. You can persist it with a cookie token session key or in client side storage or as OpenGraph meta key/values. It's all pretty much the same.

      None of the above is unique to JavaScript excepting the client side storage. Which ever language you use it's all pretty much the same stuff and JavaScript does it all just fine.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    4. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by Wattos · · Score: 1

      Hi, Thanks for the response

      I never argued that JS is hard to use. I only argued that it becomes unmanageable once your code base becomes large (e.g. more than 1 js file), especially if you work on a team.

      Did you try renaming a function and following all instances which use that function? You cannot be sure that you have found all instances (especially if it has a similar name to a different function in a different class) unless you run the code over all code paths.

    5. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by spongman · · Score: 1

      JavaScript is really very simple to abuse.

      tftfy

    6. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by petsounds · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most people who love Javascript seem to love it for the bad parts -- the "everything goes" language parts. There's no classes, just anonymous functions. Some people seem to love this half-assed prototype-based OOP and label it with words like "expressive" and "powerful". It's not so powerful when you're building complex RIAs. In that case, it's really dreadful compared to class-based OOP languages. As people start developing more advanced HTML5 apps, this will become apparent. There's no strong typing. People love this. I get it...people loved Actionscript 2 with its fast-and-loose coding style. Hey, I'm not necessarily against weak typing; I like Ruby. And weak typing is fine for building quick prototypes. But it makes projects a bitch to debug. And let's be honest -- most people love it because it seems quicker to throw together a bunch of shit code really fast and get your small-sized project done.

      But there was a good reason Adobe moved on to AS3 after Microsoft killed ECMAScript 4 in the committee -- anything beyond small projects was a huge pain in the ass to develop. [Adobe also made the switch for performance reasons, but that was more because their compiler was unoptimized, which we saw bit them in the ass later] When I code in AS3 and then code something in JS, it's like stepping back 10 years in time. Which it really is, because there's been no major revision to Javascript in 10 years thanks to MS.

      And now we have compounded problems because of this. We have all these competing dev groups trying to make up for this 10-year deficit with ridiculously hacky libraries like jQuery and Coffeescript. [They are not ridiculous for what they've done within the limitations of JS; kudos to those people for squeezing every last HP out of that '82 Honda. They are ridiculous because they're ultimately ingenious-but-giant hacks on top of an outdated language.] And then we have web app frameworks like Ruby on Rails fighting amongst themselves about which JS library to bundle by default. This is the kind of crap that happens when we have standards that were made for the web of the late '90s. I'm not holding out a lot of hope for drastic changes with ECMAScript 5, or Harmony or whatever they're calling the next punt down the field.

    7. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

      I would say it is more the fact is is called JAVAscript which makes people think it is a Java-like language, which actually it isn't.

    8. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Could be a mixed blessing. I've found that test driven development solves this kind of issue. Setting up Jenkins or Hudson CI is not terribly complicated. Write unit tests as you code. Then when you refactor down the road you'll have full coverage for any errors/failed tests. You can run it with a watch script or as an ANT build script or manually.

      Look into CommonJS or AMD modular JS for separating your code into manageable chunks and handling dependencies.

      Eclipse or Aptana make nice IDEs. Good refactoring tools as well to replace method/function calls.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    9. Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? by dingen · · Score: 1

      It certainly adds to the confusion, that's for sure.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  16. Care to explain? by afabbro · · Score: 2

    the development is speeding ahead at a rate that is impressive but worrying.

    Worrying because...?

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  17. Re:Micro$oft Shill by symbolset · · Score: 3

    Slashdot posts cannot be censored or filtered off the site. We don't do that here. They can't even be taken back by the author after you've pressed "submit" and believe me, I've put a few I'd like to have back. On the balance I prefer it this way, and well, as the post accepted page says, you should have thought of that before you pressed "submit".

    Shill posts detract. Pointing out shill posts detract. But there's nothing to be done. There are financial interests involved, and they will spam. There are folks who want to white-knight slashdot as a forum for Truth, and I'm guilty of that now and then even though I know that's not what it's for. As a wise someone once said (and I paraphrase), "the value of a free thing approaches zero over time". The moderation system works.

    Dart looks to be interesting tech. No doubt Google will look to make it an open standard that anyone can implement - even IE. And that will move us closer to the day that all apps are web apps, which cannot be anything but a good thing. It's time that the client architecture was unhooked from the application ecosystem at the network layer. In fact, it's at least 15 years past time for that. That was the goal of X Windows (not to be confused with the upstart), back in the day (onion, belt, lawn, etc).

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  18. Re:Micro$oft Shill by justforgetme · · Score: 2

    I don't understand what the big fuz is about. It's not like they wrote a AAA game engine in dart, it's just an over hyped physics approximator. The demos aren't even interactive (and one performs @5fps). For all you know (no, not really) the bytecode it loads is just a predefined animation. So what if they are trying to do it wrong? Let them go that way, as long as they don't break support for the standardized www framework, I have no problem with them wasting cycles.
    There are enough devs out there, with enough intellectual lucidness, that can see through the hype and understand that nacl and dart are non viable solutions. For everyone else, happy grinding fella. I'm not going to get involved with this.

    --
    -- no sig today
  19. Re:Micro$oft Shill by J+Story · · Score: 1

    Given the cost of solutions these days, I suppose it would be more accurate to write A$$le.

    But I'm above that.

  20. This has been modded interesting? by Yuioup · · Score: 1

    A remark like is is modded interesting? Really?

    I've been a /. user since 1996 and I'm seriously considering leaving this site. The user-interface is broken and unintelligible and the comments seem to be heading towards brain-dead.

    Y

    1. Re:This has been modded interesting? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I was using Python in 1975.

  21. Awesome by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    but can it deal with a concave polygon?

    "Is it a toy language that just proves a concept or can it do real work?"

    depends on the work at hand

    1. Re:Awesome by BrokenBeta · · Score: 1

      Not precisely how you mean, but you can have static edge/chain shapes, which are like line objects you can stick anywhere and bodies will interact with them.

      If you want dynamic concave shapes you can split your shape into convex shapes however you like. Then you can put all the shapes into one body and Box2D will move them as one.

      Go and have a go with Box2D. As far as "fun to use" APIs go, you can't get much better.

    2. Re:Awesome by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      so no you have to come up with a workaround to concave polygons which pushes you harder against its body limits , and yes I have used box2d before

  22. Re:Google Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anonymous Coward is a known Google shill.

  23. Re:Micro$oft Shill by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    AFAIK the problem was never "innovation", which is what OP is accusing Google and MS of, it was the way MS pushed innovation, and then subtly sabotaged efforts to make compliant implementations (like, by only releasing part of a spec, or by leaving the spec open so that various compliant implementations would have different renderings, with MS's being the only correct one).

    The comparison to ActiveX is retarded anyways, since Firefox already has that: its called NPAPI, and its used for flash, silverlight, and all the other things that make the web go round.

  24. Re:Micro$oft Shill by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Yes, it does, one of its common meanings / usages is "something that is at odds with"; much like two orthagonal lines do not "agree" with each other, and are "at odds".

  25. Re:Micro$oft Shill by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. The posting pattern here is either mental derangement of clinical scale, or a paid astroturfing effort.

    You know, you can actually read the posting pattern by clicking on somebodies name. If you had known this, you might have based your accusations of "posting pattern" based on more than a single post. But then you wouldn't have been able to just cry faul.
    I might not agree with TechGuys opinions, but they don't seem too much out-of-the-ordinary or biased towards/against any particular company. I've seen decidedly more pro-MS/anti-everything-else posting histories for some other users.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  26. Re:Micro$oft Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When he talks about posting pattern he probably means all of those accounts, not this single post. Kinda like this.

    a) Fresh made account - check
    b) "Thoughtful" irst post with same timestamp as the article without subscription to help him - check, already third one for this acc
    c) Baseless hate towards Google - check, how baseless is explained in the comments.

  27. Re:Micro$oft Shill by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

    No. In professional literature and discussion, "orthogonal" always refers to independent -- as in, separated design elements are orthogonal, or this discussion is orthogonal to TFA. I have not once heard it used in the manner you describe, and find that implication to be, well, orthogonal to its actual meaning *grin*.

  28. Re:Micro$oft Shill by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    If M$ wasn't bullying Android hardware companies then I'd agree but that's not the case.

  29. Re:Micro$oft Shill by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    How about "£inux"?

  30. Re:Micro$oft Shill by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No, the problem is brand new accounts using a distortion of the facts to push an agenda (pro or anti a specific company). The problem was never that Microsoft added new features to IE. Individual vendors adding things to their browsers is how we got all of the features of the modern web - including images! The problems were that they implemented features that were tied closely to Windows (e.g. ActiveX: run a Windows x86 binary in a web page) and that they pushed their developer tools, which generated IE-specific output that was incompatible with other browsers.

    The standard way of adding new features to the web, since it's creation, has been for one vendor to add them to a browser, for users to experiment with them, and if they're useful for them to be implemented by multiple vendors and standardised.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  31. Hello this is the mid 1990s by biodata · · Score: 1
    and we want our web page noticee back - 'This page should be viewed on browser X with screen resolution y by z'

    This is enough for me not to bother clicking on the link. Saying this about your web page is a risky strategy and I guess only Google can get away with this and get a subset of people to dutifully switch browsers just to see what the exciting page has on it (and possibly Apple could too).

    Moving on.

    --
    Korma: Good
  32. I really want this to be a success by bhspencer · · Score: 1

    I would love to have a choice of what language to use when writing client side code. JavaScript gets the job done and it is far from ideal. Even Crockford recognizes that JavaScript contains many mistakes in its implementation.

  33. Re:Micro$oft Shill by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Ah there is the /. hate I've grown to love. Thanks.

  34. Re:Micro$oft Shill by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

    I still don't see how the poster was promoting a specific company by pointing out there mistakes but okay I'll give you that new accounts going off pushing a particular idea might be astro-turfing. One could argue a lot of new accounts get away with pushing No-Company (TM) products though as in it is okay to go off on Richard Stallman like rants of craziness as long as you are pushing FOSS without being labelled an astro-turfer. Techies have their preferred tech and likely will post about what they care about. So I'd say with something this subtle give the guy/girl the benefit of the doubt.

  35. Re:Micro$oft Shill by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bonch and Over Critical Guy are two known MS shills who even post messages based on the same script. See this post from Overly Critical Guy and compare it to this post by bonch. Notice any similiarities?

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  36. Re:Micro$oft Shill by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    The term orthagonal has a meaning referring to two elements at 90-degree angles with each other:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality
    It has somewhat different meanings depending on the context, but most involve the idea of perpendicular, non-overlapping, varying independently, or uncorrelated.

    There are many ways to use it, and your claim that it ONLY means "independent" is definitely wrong-- ask any professional mathematician.

  37. Re:Micro$oft Shill by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    No, but I sure notice similarities between this post and this post. You're the troll who has been anonymously accusing people of being shills, and now you've created some psychotic "list" of accounts.

    Get a life.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  38. Re:Micro$oft Shill by fwarren · · Score: 1

    I have to admit, that I am very pro-linux and very pro-google.

    I still think there is a big difference between Google and Microsoft in this case. Microsoft tends to do things to create lock in wherever they can. Back then by doing things with HTML, addons, etc, to tie you to Windows. Now by having a signed boot loader that can only boot Windows 8 on the ARM platform. They play "open" where they have to, but play "lock in" and "monopoly" whenever they think they can get away with it. This means if they could kill off other browsers, they would. if it means making HTML a Microsoft product and a must have, while breaking the internet, they would.

    Google has a different goal. The more stuff people do on line, the more likely they are to use Google services, and the more Google services they use, the more money Google makes. Google does not lock people in. If you want to leave google mail, hoock up to it via IMAP and copy your stuff out. You can opt out and go elsewhere when ever you want. Most people dont. Googles goal with web browsers is to make them such a powerful platform that google services run as well as native apps. So they work on their own browser, their improved javascript engine, a replacement for javascript. Why? Speed, everyone else is able to copy what they are doing and make their web browsers better. It does not matter in the long run if you use Opera, Internet Explorer, Safari, or Firefox. If they improve so that the google experience is good, they are happy and they have "won".

    With Google they want others to take advantage of their work with HTML, scripting and other web advancements. Please do so, on any platform you want, create your own dev tools. We will make it easy for you to use our standard. Versus Microsofts, only our implementation is standard, it only runs on our platform, you should only use our platform.

    --
    vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  39. Re:Micro$oft Shill by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    I've said this a few times, but I guess there's little harm in repeating it one more time.

    1) The way to identify astroturfers is not through content, but through posting patterns. Content is just a very small part that only indicates who hired that person.
    2) Do you argue with ads? Do you also go one by one through ads, debunking every claim? Maybe you do it for a few, but it's not feasible to do it for every one. Furthermore, you can't have an honest debate with them. The best you can hope for is to alert others to the fact that the arguments are incorrect, and to move on. After the 15th debunking, you just leave it at "astroturf alert", and move on.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  40. Re:Micro$oft Shill by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    It has already been repeatedly demonstrated that Overly Critical Guy and bonch accounts are operated by same invididual/organization, to the point that the same script is shared between accounts. The organization behind the bonch and Overly Critical Guy accounts is invested in a massive astroturfing campaign which produces such a high volume of crap pushing a pro-Microsoft point of view that you don't even bother tweaking the official script, as was demonstrated by chrb in this post, and as I've pointed out before in this post.

    So, you can cut your deceitful comments now that your cover has been blown.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  41. Re:Micro$oft Shill by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    For a headsup, the bonch account and Overly Critical Guy accounts are sockpuppets operated by the same organization. See this post and a previous post I've made here for evidence that these user accounts are used to push the same script, sometimes even copy/paste versions of it.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  42. Re:Micro$oft Shill by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Whoops, you forgot to log out!

    Oh dear. What's the universal hand signal for egg on face?