Slashdot Mirror
Google's Dart Becomes ECMA's Dart
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."
WTF is Google Dart?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
...as it doesn't become a Dodge Dart.
Go find an open source project that actually matters.
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.
Unless they can get Mozilla on board, It's just not enough.
I don't much like Javascript, but I haven't taken the time to look Dart over.
I do think the word standard should be better standardized.
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
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.
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
Google is gaining way too much power over what you over the internet.
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.
I'm pretty sure the number of ads on that "I Programmer" page exceeds the limit Google specifies in their AdSense guidelines.
#DeleteChrome
is it worth it?
90% the programmer in me says 'NO'. The other 10% is curious, but still, it just doesn't do it.
Sorry for the MS in me, but getting a proper async/await support for javascript would do alot (yes, I know about JQuery and promises, and no, it does not cut it).
"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
Dear Google:
Show us how Dart is worth the time and effort for coders who are already proficient in one to several other languages to learn and possibly convert to Dart.
If you can't do that, then stop wasting our fucking time.
Why not just adopt asm.js, and continue improving LLVM compilers into it? That way anyone can compile their language of choice into JS, and browsers can focus on optimizing for what comes out of those intermediate compilers? Instead, they want to replace one lame (but at least useful) tech with another equally lame (but completely pointless) one. Not invented here syndrome?
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:
Seastead this.
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 but I do not like it limited to new languages. The browser that allows me to write in C or C++ syntax will get some SERIOUS love from me. Even if it is like Dart's side functionality, converts it to javascript. I'd love to see Perl, Python, or Ruby run without a separate engine.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
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 ) 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?
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 part of .NET. The web already has the "Object Model / Standard Library" end of things, the DOM, it just needs a virtual machine standard and then web developers could bring, port or invent the language of their choice.
CoffeeScript is nothing but syntactic sugar. I don't get why people are so excited about it, it is exactly javascript, with a different look. It is not a language of its own, and on top of that, doesn't run natively in its form and makes debugging a pain...
JavaScript's issues can be summed up with a simple google search inquiring how to emulate structs/classes. It's a disaster from the ground up. It's object oriented without a sufficient definition of what an object is. It's bad, brother.
Already exists and is slowly moving forward with almost zero help. Supports many languages already.
http://www.parrot.org/
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Why would anyone want to use Dart when one can use existing languages and compile to JS/asm.js and get better performance than what native Dart VM has?
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
You know what? Screw you Google. You promised us an open Android and then shafted us. Not falling for it twice.
As a web developer, I'm quite excited for Google Dart and am interested in seeing where it leads; I'm not sure what's with all the bashing about it, except out of pure ignorance. Javascript is a very useful and neat, but rather strange language, riddled with tricks, "gotchas", and downright strange behavior. I do use it on a daily basis, and I've learned to love it (the NPM ecosystem is wonderful), but I wouldn't go so far to call it a good language in and of itself. That's why things like Typekit and Coffeescript exist. Dart looks like it'll bring more structured programming into the web (along with some performance gains). I've not yet jumped into it - learning Python at the moment - but am excited to do so, and I think it has potential.
JavaScript is the web equivalent to assembly Language on the desktop in that fact that it runs across (mostly) all major browsers and Operating Systems. JavaScript generators are the future of web development in my mind. If you have ever tried to write an enterprise size application with more than a few developers working on the project you will see that JavaScript becomes increasingly difficult to use. Having a compiler, tools, and real code organization ( classes, name spaces, a browser agnostic syntax - i.e don't need things like JQuery) make languages like dart very attractive. Also, look at the benchmarks of dart2js. You will be surprised to see how efficient the generated code is. The dart developers built dart2js like a real optimizing compiler.
Google can and will drop anything at any time for any reason. Thus I have zero interest in Dart, which will be abandonware in a few years. So, now that Dart is standardized, who will pick up and maintain it when Google drops it? That question would have to be answered before I'd even look at Dart. Communities rarely form around languages or technologies that big companies try to cram down people's throats. (Anyone used CORBA recently?) Communities organically spring up around innovation. (Anyone used Spring recently?) So for me to even look at Dart, it would have to serve some compelling need and have a thriving non-Google community. My interest in yet another programming language is zero.
You are the reason for my new sig.
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
Anything that Google tries to standardize with ECMA is going to become more controlled by Microsoft. Aside from this, ECMA is a European standards group (sort of). Their "standards" usually contain patented technology that then must be licensed (usually from Microsoft). I think it might suit Google's purposes better to form a working group and create a standard themselves that they can keep out of Microsoft's hands.
He is an evil Sith Lord, Darth Gogol.
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 spent my mod points elsewhere today: you'll have to settle for my paltry accolades. Nevertheless, your efforts are quite appreciated.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.