Google Releases Dart 1.1

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:25AM from the is-it-on-target dept.

rjmarvin writes "Google released version 1.1 of its Dart open-source web programming language today, with new features and improved tools. The Dart Editor is updated with improved debugging, code implementation and more descriptive toolkits, and new UDP (User Datagram Protocol) and documentation support command-line and server-side Dart applications. Google also highlighted benchmarks such as the Richards benchmark, where Dart 1.1 is running 25% faster than JavaScript, as part of the larger competition between Dart and JavaScript in creating more complex applications in the web development space."

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't seem much of a speed advantage to lure developers away from the ubiquitous JavaScript.
1. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  My thoughts exactly -- 25% is near nothing. I'd guess that you could achieve the same or more just with built-in native support for common programming patterns, either by detecting those in the JIT compiler or, where necessary, by providing new built-in JS functions for the script writers to use.
2. Re:25%?? by lgw · 2014-01-16 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So how long till Google drops this project too? I'm all for new approaches to code that runs in the browser, but I'm a bit hesitant to invest in any technology stack from a company with such a history of dropping projects.
  Is there any sort of non-google dev community supporting Dart itself? Or is it completely dependent on Google at this point?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
3. Re:25%?? by Nerdfest · 2014-01-16 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  There is also the advantage of not Dart being a much nicer and consistent language o use than JavaScript, to the point that it would probably be worth it even if it were a bit slower.
4. Re:25%?? by rlwhite · 2014-01-16 08:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And it appears to be a misquote of TFA too: "Dart’s Javascript output continues to shine. Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript."
5. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  Mod this up. They're just saying that when Dart compiles to JavaScript it's finally not slower than having written it in JavaScript in the first place.
6. Re:25%?? by DickBreath · 2014-01-16 09:21 · Score: 2
  
  MOD PARENT UP.
  
  That is correct. They are saying Dart is 25% faster than earlier Dart. Now almost as good as JavaScript. They are NOT saying it is 25% faster than JavaScript.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
7. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  So how long till Google drops this project too? I'm all for new approaches to code that runs in the browser, but I'm a bit hesitant to invest in any technology stack from a company with such a history of dropping projects.
  Is there any sort of non-google dev community supporting Dart itself? Or is it completely dependent on Google at this point?
  This is not about scripting for browsers. It is Google's attempt to compete with node.js which is used for server development. While at present node.js itself uses Google's V8 javascript engine, there's nothing like owning an entire language.
8. Re:25%?? by JavaTHut · 2014-01-16 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  Although in some benchmarks the Dart VM is 25% faster than JavaScript (and much more in other benchmarks). The article quotes are a mess. Just look at the actual benchmark numbers at https://www.dartlang.org/performance/ for a good idea of what's actually being claimed.
9. Re:25%?? by JavaTHut · 2014-01-16 09:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Dart is really just the evolution of Google's GWT efforts, which they've been pretty good about supporting long-term and cultivating community contributions while also making a lengthy migration path to Dart
10. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why do they advertise the performance then and not the clean-ness and features of the language?
11. Re:25%?? by MochaMan · 2014-01-16 12:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Dart team member here. The Dart project, like Chromium, is being run as a fully open source project accepting patches from Googlers and non-Googlers alike. We've also begun the ECMA Standardization process, meaning that like JavaScript we'll have a open standard that anyone can implement to. In terms of Dart users, here's a list of some. Hope that answers your questions!
12. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Then you should really take a look at any number of other languages that can be compiled down to JS. Dart may not be your favorite.
13. Re:25%?? by nurb432 · 2014-01-16 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  It really doesn't answer the question of what happens when Google proper loses interest and pulls funding. Does it survive on its own, or vanish?
  If its was a more established language, with decades behind it, there would far less risk in choosing it. But that is always the chicken/egg problem with stuff like this.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
14. Re:25%?? by lgw · 2014-01-16 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, my actual question was whether the non-google contributors had reached critical mass, such that the project could practically be sustained without Google.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
15. Re:25%?? by swillden · 2014-01-16 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  It really doesn't answer the question of what happens when Google proper loses interest and pulls funding.
  Google's purpose in creating Dart was so that Google could use it to build its own apps. So if Dart is better than Javascript for that purpose (it is), and if Dart can get enough penetration into the browser market that Google can actually use it for its own services (debatable), then Google will continue supporting it.
  So, rather than asking what Google is going to do, you're better off asking what Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla are going to do.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
16. Re:25%?? by MochaMan · 2014-01-16 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  It really doesn't answer the question of what happens when Google proper loses interest and pulls funding. Does it survive on its own, or vanish?
  There's really no possible satisfying answer to that question without knowing the reasons for the hypothetical future loss of interest/support on Google's part. One could ask similar questions about any language with equally unsatisfying answers.
  The project is open source and headed for ECMA standardization - both of those are both very positive from the point of view of future continuity. The best anyone can answer is that if such a situation ever should come to pass, the project is in the best possible position to have the community/someone else pick up the torch. If that's not satisfying enough, then waiting and watching is perhaps the best strategy.
17. Re:25%?? by davester666 · 2014-01-16 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  None of them seem to have expressed any interest in including support for Dart in their browsers. Or rather, they have expressed negative interest in supporting Dart.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
18. Re:25%?? by davester666 · 2014-01-16 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because that site would be completely 100% objective, and certainly would never pick specific benchmarks that might indicate a specific language is better than others.
  Actually, I'm surprised they claim it's only 25% on these hand-picked [one of which was specifically coded for it] benchmarks.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
19. Re:25%?? by non0score · 2014-01-16 20:20 · Score: 1
  Which one of them have expressed interest in each of the language the other is proposing? Let me give you a list:
  
  Apple: Doesn't care, would rather you program in Objective-C.
  MS: TypeScript, same issue -- who else do you think is adopting that?
  Mozilla: LLJS, and how far along is that? Sure, there's asm.js (we're talking about speed here, yeah?), but that's a compile target and not something you'd want to write by hand from scratch -- that and it's not exactly a new language.
  Google: Dart, and who knows, it might at least be on Opera some day? Caveat: you have to run Dartium if you don't want to compile to JS, but I'm sure they're working on that.
  Think about it: the point that everyone is rejecting everyone else's language is because they all have their own wares to peddle. Of course "they" all express negative interest in supporting each other
  At the end of the day, of all the modern browsers, which one has the highest market penetration/momentum? If you're going to target the "next generation" of web languages, which one would you chose?
20. Re:25%?? by non0score · 2014-01-16 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand your sentiment where you may not trust these benchmarks to be unbiased. However, I am fairly certain if they are, it'd be pretty easy to prove. Do you have any sites that show to the contrary?
  Furthermore, one of the major points of all the "new web languages" is to add (optional) typing, which is where the biggest speedups come from modern JS engines -- type inference and unboxing. So to strip them of these features is akin to saying "you're allowed to benchmark C against Python if you made sure everything in C is type checked before being operated on, even if you know their types." So I'm not exactly sure what you're objecting to here.
21. Re:25%?? by AuMatar · 2014-01-16 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Question for you- why compile to Javascript rather than a new interpreter directly in Chrome? The last thing I want to do is write in one language, compile it to another, then need to debug across language boundaries. Its a maintenance nightmare and a complete non-starter for me.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
22. Re:25%?? by dwater · 2014-01-16 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think because there would be a natural assumption that using dart would actually be slower...they're saying that isn't the case, and in fact it is a bit faster.
  
  --
  Max.
23. Re:25%?? by dwater · 2014-01-16 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  someone else mentions :
  > And it appears to be a misquote of TFA too: "Dart’s Javascript output continues to shine. Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript."
  So, it didn't even mean what is said...it is just 'comparable' after all.
  
  --
  Max.
24. Re:25%?? by Xest · 2014-01-16 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  Because Javascript is the only ubiquitous cross browser application engine?
  Of course they want to go further than that (and afaik Chrome can execute it natively?) but getting Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple to accept that maybe Google, their arch enemy, kind of has a point and hence implementing a Google born technology, is an impossible task.
  It took long enough to get Microsoft to accept HTML5 and that was with Apple, Mozilla, and Google all working together with it.
  It's a chicken and egg scenario, Google needs it to reach critical mass to force them to implement support but it can't reach critical mass without support, but they're trying anyway. I guess they figure with Chrome being the most popular browser there's just a slight chance and at least in the meantime the other browsers can still execute code written in it using Javascript.
25. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  What's easier to sell to your boss when you want to use a different language. "Because I like it!" or "Because it's 25% faster!"?
26. Re:25%?? by allcoolnameswheretak · 2014-01-17 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  25% is near nothing, hey? Then I suppose you wouldn't mind donating 25% of your net monthly income to charity? Help make the world a better place.
27. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  I guess they figure with Chrome being the most popular browser there's just a slight chance and at least in the meantime the other browsers can still execute code written in it using Javascript.
  Chrome is actually the third most popular browser.
28. Re:25%?? by Xest · 2014-01-17 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Um, yes, if you listen to a source that's entire business model revolves around being paid by companies like Microsoft to give favourable results, that has openly admitted it's results are skewed, and that does not provide the underlying data for their calculations.
  Meanwhile, in the real world, Chrome is still the most popular browser.
29. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Um, yes, if you listen to a source that's entire business model revolves around being paid by companies like Microsoft to give favourable results, that has openly admitted it's results are skewed, and that does not provide the underlying data for their calculations.
  Meanwhile, in the real world, Chrome is still the most popular browser.
  And what better source backs that up?
30. Re:25%?? by MochaMan · 2014-01-17 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Question for you- why compile to Javascript rather than a new interpreter directly in Chrome?
  
  To allow for the widest possible cross-browser app compatibility today. Dart currently support all modern browsers (back to IE9) - forcing users to use Chrome would divide the web, which is the last thing we want to do. That said, we're working on getting the VM into Chrome, but really that comes down to an added performance boost. We expect most developers will target JS to ensure cross-browser compatibility. It's entirely possible (encouraged, even) to deploy both.
  
  The last thing I want to do is write in one language, compile it to another, then need to debug across language boundaries.
  The good news is that you can write and debug purely in Dart and test in Dartium (Chromium + DartVM) with no compile step today. The dart2js step is a deployment step. Obviously, you'd want to do the usual testing of the final compiled output in a few browsers just like you'd do with a JS app today, but for development you can live entirely in Dart.
31. Re:25%?? by Xest · 2014-01-17 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Statcounter is imperfect, but better because it at least eliminates bias even if it's not a completely statistically accurate measure. It also helps that although far from identical, it at least tallies a lot more closely with smaller scale independent studies like the one W3Schools.
  We don't have a perfect measure, but just because no measure is perfect doesn't mean there aren't grossly different levels of quality, and it's meaningless to refer to a completely unverifiable study like NetApp's that's produced by a company that is openly and unquestionably biased and pursuing an agenda of skewed stats for financial gain, especially when there are much more objective alternatives out there that all paint a much closer picture to each other than the drastic nonsensical outlier that is NetApp.
32. Re:25%?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  They are talking about the speed of the generated JavaScript code, not running the code natively on the Dart VM. They are saying that if you write an idiomatic version of a program in both Dart and JavaScript and then use dart2js to convert the Dart code to JavaScript, then the translated Dart code can be up to 25% faster (both running on the same JavaScript VM). Running code in the native Dart runtime can already run up to 2X faster than JavaScript and they haven't really implemented many optimizations yet since the project is so young still.
33. Re:25%?? by nmr_andrew · 2014-01-17 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for providing some information.
  
  In terms of Dart users, here's a list of some. Hope that answers your questions!
  I'm not sure this is making much of a case for uptake, though. I took a quick look through that list, and the only non-Google company I really recognize on there is Adobe.
34. Re:25%?? by brodock · 2014-01-17 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  even if it was slower, going away from javascript is always a good idea, if the alternative is a better programming language... JS is a mess!
N.S.A. Devises Radio Pathway Into Computers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:29 · Score: -1

By david e. sanger and thom shanker = jan. 14, 2014
= URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html
= Image: http://cryptome.org/2014/01/nsa-quantum-radio.jpg
== Coverage #1: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/01/15/1324216/nyt-nsa-put-100000-radio-pathway-backdoors-in-pcs
== Coverage #2: http://cryptome.org/2014/01/nsa-quantum-radio.htm
== Coverage #3: http://rt.com/usa/nsa-radio-wave-cyberattack-607/
== Coverage #4: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/nsa-uses-covert-radio-transmissions-to-monitor-100000-bugged-computers/
=== Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20140116010210/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html
"WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency has implanted software in nearly 100,000 computers around the world that allows the United States to conduct surveillance on those machines and can also create a digital highway for launching cyberattacks.
While most of the software is inserted by gaining access to computer networks, the N.S.A. has increasingly made use of a secret technology that enables it to enter and alter data in computers even if they are not connected to the Internet, according to N.S.A. documents, computer experts and American officials.
The technology, which the agency has used since at least 2008, relies on a covert channel of radio waves that can be transmitted from tiny circuit boards and USB cards inserted surreptitiously into the computers. In some cases, they are sent to a briefcase-size relay station that intelligence agencies can set up miles away from the target.
The radio frequency technology has helped solve one of the biggest problems facing American intelligence agencies for years: getting into computers that adversaries, and some American partners, have tried to make impervious to spying or cyberattack. In most cases, the radio frequency hardware must be physically inserted by a spy, a manufacturer or an unwitting user.
The N.S.A. calls its efforts more an act of "active defense" against foreign cyberattacks than a tool to go on the offensive. But when Chinese attackers place similar software on the computer systems of American companies or government agencies, American officials have protested, often at the presidential level.
Among the most frequent targets of the N.S.A. and its Pentagon partner, United States Cyber Command, have been units of the Chinese Army, which the United States has accused of launching regular digital probes and attacks on American industrial and military targets, usually to steal secrets or intellectual property. But the program, code-named Quantum, has also been successful in inserting software into Russian military networks and systems used by the Mexican police and drug cartels, trade institutions inside the European Union, and sometime partners against terrorism like Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, according to officials and an N.S.A. map that indicates sites of what the agency calls "computer network exploitation."
"What's new here is the scale and the sophistication of the intelligence agency's ability to get into computers and networks to which no one has ever had access before," said James Andrew Lewis, the cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and Interna
1. Re:N.S.A. Devises Radio Pathway Into Computers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit
  What magic fairy dust does the NSA have to hack into machines remotely that aren't connected to the internet?
New test on who RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:33 · Score: 1

Make it so that link in the article is broken. See who notices.
Broken Link by rjmarvin · 2014-01-16 08:34 · Score: 3, Informative

The first link is broken, it loops back to the submission.
1. Re:Broken Link by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Maybe it's gone the way of Google Reader already...
2. Re:Broken Link by rjmarvin · 2014-01-16 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Strike that, it actually goes straight to a 404 error page. Might want to get on that, guys.
3. Re:Broken Link by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Should be:
  http://sdt.bz/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=67599&page=1
  aka
  http://sdt.bz/67591
4. Re:Broken Link by xandroid · 2014-01-16 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  post on the rust site: http://news.dartlang.org/2014/01/dart-11-features-up-to-25-faster.html
  
  --
  $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
5. Re:Broken Link by xandroid · 2014-01-16 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...and by rust of course i meant dart...
  
  --
  $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
6. Re:Broken Link by ChunderDownunder · 2014-01-16 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nice freudian slip to ignite a Chrome vs Firefox flamewar. :)
  Thought bubble: Suppose firefox-nextgen (implemented 99% in rust) includes
  where rust-web is a subset of rust for which FF provides a rust console (repl). Code compiles directly to 'safe' native code without the need for an interpreter nor the overhead of garbage collection. As a Mozilla-proprietary open source language (i.e. like vbscript and Dart, no other browser adopts it), it could offer performance gains due to being a typed 'systems language'.
  JS is currently hailed as 'the assembly language of the web' in terms of languages that compile-to-JS. But if we've reached the performance limits of a Javascript interpreter perhaps we'll have multiple browser-specific 'assembly languages'. i.e. someday we'll be writing code in Coffeescript 7.0 (or equiv), with various backends for Javascript, Dart and rust depending on the user-agent.
If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Billly+Gates · 2014-01-16 08:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Everyone here would be screaming bloody murder and all MS is trying to sabotage the web again?! But if Google does it then it is cool and innovative.
I am tired of chrome not implementing W3C standards without using the -webkit to get it to work properly. I am not the only once concerned it is the next IE 6 but thankfully there are only a few sites which only work well in Chrome.
Mozilla Firefox is catching up and has the fasted DOM according to tomshardware and ASM.JS looks to be rather interesting. Unfortunately it is agaisn't Google's interest to support it as they want a closed ecosystem similar to IE 6 and activeX before it.
I still use Chrome as Firefox is still behind in a few areas, but even IE is catching up and I find both IE and Firefox to use less ram than Chrome.

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Nerdfest · 2014-01-16 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  Is Dart an open language spec? I've assumed it is, but may be incorrect. That's usually what detracts from Microsoft's attempts ... they try to lock you to Microsoft. If this is just as locked, it's just as useless. If it's open, can be forked, etc, if Google goes Microsoft-like, then it's a great idea.
2. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by sanosuke001 · 2014-01-16 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Any replacement for javascript is a step in the right direction. If they dropped dynamic types altogether it would be a much better alternative than it already is.
  
  --
  -SaNo
3. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Chrome can never be IE6, because Chrome auto-updates. Also because there are viable alternatives now vs when IE was dominating.
4. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I wish Google was less pushy with their tech. Mozilla's making them look worse and worse as the years go by. Google makes a bunch of iffy languages for the web while Mozilla makes one very promising systems language, and upstands Google by showing they could just incrementally improve Javascript at a faster rate. One of them wants the world to change to their model, the other is working to change the world from within.
  I get the impression that Google just wants people to use their tech. With the advent of asm.js and languages like Coffeescript, it's become clear that NaCl and Dart aren't as practical or useful as Google hoped. They really should have thought about other vendors before they pushed their own standards out the door and hoped everyone would use them just 'cause they're shiny Google tech.
  Hell, these are the same guys that paved the way properly with SPDY, getting clout with other browser vendors and with HTTP servers to implement it, and embarrassing the HTTP guys into finally making HTTP2 a reality. Shame they otherwise seem to be replacing the entire web stack with their own version, hoping for business interests to do their dirty work (as with how WebP is being pushed by image hosters regardless of how iffy it is).
5. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Billly+Gates · 2014-01-16 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  What I would like to see is a virtual machine. Yeah it will add bloat and waste cpu etc.
  But a VM will increase security and any language can run inside it. So once can use python for example or make up his or her own language and have that JIT compile if it is not cached and run etc. Kind of like people usuing Java to run python with jython but more vm than sandbox like.
  I see Google's native client and NACL and this as just that. They are making Chrome into a ChromeOS virtual machine where it is all a Google ecosystem. Maybe this would be a great idea for HTML 6 and CSS 4 standards. Have a VM that does x,y, and z.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
6. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Serious+Callers+Only · 2014-01-16 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  What I would like to see is a virtual machine.
  ++
7. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Tumbleweed · 2014-01-16 09:09 · Score: -1
  
  I am tired of chrome not implementing W3C standards without using the -webkit to get it to work properly. I am not the only once concerned it is the next IE 6 but thankfully there are only a few sites which only work well in Chrome.
  You seem to have no idea why IE6 was the big problem it was. It's not possible for Chrome to be "the new IE6", since:
  1) It's not tied into Windows
  2) It auto-updates silently, and new version adoption is VERY high among Chrome users.
  3) vendor prefixes are not much of a problem compared to not implementing features at all, or implementing them badly.
  Nice troll attempt, though.
8. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Ok so you have to use a non standard -webkit to make it function right. No that is not IE 6 at all as adding custom jscript is not much of a problem either.
9. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by TopSpin · 2014-01-16 09:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Is Dart an open language spec?
  The language spec is CCA 3 and ECMA standards tracked. The source code is BSD.
  Javascript was not an immaculate conception of Berners-Lee, Torvalds and Stallman. It was a product of Mozilla, blessed by nobody and foisted on the world via the defacto browser of the day. It is also more than flawed enough to justify some competition.
  The <script> tag has a "language" attribute for a reason, the curmudgeons of Slashdot notwithstanding.
  
  --
  Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
10. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  How about this: a 'browser' is just a script that downloads, chmod+xs, and runs any bytestream it encounters, and you only run a 'browser' in an already-established virtual machine like VirtualBox or VMWare. Then you can leave the crumbling remains of the 'internet' we already have to me, and I'll be content with my 2M browser that allows me to read text with a little markup, and you can enjoy websites with polygon counts in the tens of thousands with 3D in-your-face drop-down menus.
11. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'm browsing the samples with Firefox, how is it anything activex?
  https://www.dartlang.org/samples
12. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by rlwhite · 2014-01-16 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  From the spec: (https://www.dartlang.org/docs/spec/latest/dart-language-specification.html#h.jn6bj1irtqj1)
  "Except as otherwise noted, the content of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the BSD License."
13. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by gnoshi · 2014-01-16 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  What, like Java?
14. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by dubbayu_d_40 · 2014-01-16 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Where are these "cool and innovative" posts you speak of?
15. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-16 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  It is also more than flawed enough to justify some competition.
  How so? Are you familiar with the language at all?
  
  The tag has a "language" attribute for a reason
  Not any more. It's been depreciated for a while now.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
16. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  You know, Sun tried this with Java oh, ~15 or so years ago.
17. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Deprecated in favor of the type= attribute, which does the same thing.
18. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, like Java. No, don't bring up the arguments against the Java plugin.
19. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  So, let me get this straight: first, you complain about Chrome and Google and how they're trying to force people into a closed ecosystem and so on. Then you talk about how Firefox is the fastestest ever and use less RAM and so on.
  And, finally, you state that, despite all that, you're still using Chrome. ...I think it's called Stockholm Syndrome.
20. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  None of your bullet points refute the argument.
  The point is that developers target the features of a browser instead of the standards the browser is supposed to support and you end up with sites telling you need to upgrade your browser to Chrome...
21. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by phantomfive · 2014-01-16 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  It is also more than flawed enough to justify some competition.
  How so? Are you familiar with the language at all?
  I'm 90% sure that the reason Javascript was built as a prototype-based language is because that was the easiest way to create the interpreter.
  
  Javascript's scoping rules are horrible, though. Overall the language is fine, if you avoid certain parts, but it's not a great example of anything.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
22. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. Except that Sun did it wrong way back when, and never bothered to get it right.
23. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by MochaMan · 2014-01-16 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's started the process of ECMA standardization.
24. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  depreciate != deprecate
25. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-16 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm 90% sure that the reason Javascript was built as a prototype-based language is because that was the easiest way to create the interpreter.
  Possibly, but the reason doesn't seem relevant. Being accidentally well-designed isn't exactly a strong criticism!
  
  Javascript's scoping rules are horrible, though.
  Sorry, what's wrong with them? I've heard that before, but I've yet to hear an actual reason. I've looked, but can't even begin to understand this complaint.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
26. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Ceriel+Nosforit · 2014-01-16 12:40 · Score: 2
  
  How so? Are you familiar with the language at all?
  Can't speak for him, but I do. Dart has for example a Future class which actually immediately tells you what is going on even when you have derived your own version of it, when Javascript has as many solutions to the concurrency problem as there are programmers. I often think of Javascript as a write-only language, while Dart code actually opens itself up rather well to studying.
  I think that most importantly Dart seems to know what it is and what its purpose is. Javascript was excellent when the web was new since no one knew how to solve the repeating engineering problems, but since jQuery came around it appears more like a tool for inventing infinite ways to shoot yourself in the foot. Dart knows you'll probably want to do something MVC-like and eventually shoe-horn it into the dreaded DOM. They are paying lots of attention to the Canvas element though, and know that Pointer Events is the Way.
  Juxtapose, the C/C++ I learned back in the day looks completely different from what it looks like now. I hardly knew what was going on when I did some network / sensor work with Nokia's Qt SDK, but cargo-culting saw me through. You could see the language's age, while Dart doesn't have that legacy cruft.
  
  --
  All rites reversed 2010
27. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Javascript was created way before there was Mozilla.
28. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-16 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  but since jQuery came around it appears more like a tool for inventing infinite ways to shoot yourself in the foot.
  
  Ugh... Try not to judge javascript on the basis of that abomination.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
29. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by walterbyrd · 2014-01-16 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  If MS did it, it would be totally proprietary and *only* work on MSIE.
30. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by phantomfive · 2014-01-16 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  ? You like Javascript but not OOP??
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
31. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by non0score · 2014-01-16 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think every new version of Chrome they remove more of the webkit prefixes (and I don't think they add any more now?). I thought Google isn't even the "owner" of webkit, and Apple is? I'm also guessing this is one of the reasons why Google forked and went their own way.
32. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Megol · 2014-01-16 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you assume that a /. poster are logical?
  BTW the quote isn't from Dijkstra and is fundamentally wrong (OOP originated in Norway).
33. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, you're right, narcc is a well known PHP/Javascript fanboy here. He doesn't even understand why Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing and that's really CS101 stuff.
  But would you really expect anything more from someone that believes Javascript and PHP are the pinnacles of quality language design and has a made up quote for his signature? I mean really, we're talking about someone clearly bottom of the programming knowledge pile here.
34. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-17 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Fanboy? No, I'm just not irrational. I find the "PHP is the bad because I dunno why, just is" crowd irritating. Hold any opinion you want, just make sure that it's the result of thought, not a substitute for it!
  
  He doesn't even understand why Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing and that's really CS101 stuff.
  Well, then please, enlighten me! What makes it bad? How is that reason any way related to CS, let alone something you'd encounter in a 101 course?
  
  believes Javascript and PHP are the pinnacles of quality language design
  When did I ever say that? On PHP, all I've said is that it's not the unusable abomination unthinking slashdotters believe it to be. It's a perfectly average language, well suited to the task for which it was designed. If you disagree, please, offer a reason. (Hint: "It's just like, really bad, man" isn't a reason.)
  Javascript is a surprisingly well-designed language. It's not without it's faults (no language is perfect) but it's certainly a cut above other popular languages.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
35. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-17 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  BTW the quote isn't from Dijkstra
  Yes, it is.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
36. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-17 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  You like Javascript but not OOP?
  It's not complicated. Just get past the pitifully superficial and I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle that one out.
  So... no answer on the alleged problems with Javascript's scoping rules? (I'm not too surprised. It turns out that that particular myth evaporates the instant you look in to it. I guess that's why it's not as popular now as it used to be.)
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
37. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  > Well, then please, enlighten me! What makes it bad?"
  > On PHP, all I've said is that it's not the unusable abomination unthinking slashdotters believe it to be. It's a perfectly average language"
  > Javascript is a surprisingly well-designed language. It's not without it's faults (no language is perfect) but it's certainly a cut above other popular languages."
  Please tell me you're just a troll. I'd hate to think there's anyone on this planet who is actually this stupid.
  You prove my point exactly by admitting you don't understand why defaulting to the global scope and allowing an application to execute in spite of the dangers a simple mistake can make is a problem.
  The fact you think Javascript is a cut above other popular languages, presumably including the likes of C#, Java, C++, Python and so forth is disturbing at best and shows you can't ever have really used any of these languages.
  Please tell me you're just a troll. Please for the love of god.
38. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by phantomfive · 2014-01-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  He doesn't even understand why Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing and that's really CS101 stuff.
  
  Well, then please, enlighten me! What makes it bad? How is that reason any way related to CS, let alone something you'd encounter in a 101 course?
  I don't know about CS 101, but by their third semester, I've seen a lot of students come to an understanding of why global variables cause problems. My guess is that you have mainly written small programs in your life, and that is why you've never understood it. In that case carry on, keep doing what works for you.
  
  Doug Crockford talks a lot about the problems of Javascript in his book, "JavaScript: The Good Parts." He also briefly discusses scoping. If it's something you care about, you can go read it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
39. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  PHP has some pretty astounding brain damage; a small sampling includes: inconsistency in how it handles errors, it just now got namespaces, which combines with the project's "keep broken functions and add new ones" ethos badly, and they got the association of the ternary operator wrong (opposite every other language, which makes it broken for emulating switch statements without parens). Google "PHP: A Fractal of Bad Design" for an admittedly inflammatory survey.
  That being said, I agree that JS gets beaten on more than it deserves; it has at least got first class functions and regex support.
40. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-17 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen a lot of students come to an understanding of why global variables cause problems.
  Indeed they do. But that's not the issue here. The claim here is that "Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing" which, additionally, is "CS 101 stuff". While I've been accused of "not understanding", I've never actually posted anything on the subject! I did ask the parent to enlighten me and support his ultimately unsupportable assertions.
  
  He also briefly discusses scoping. If it's something you care about, you can go read it.
  It was your criticism. You claimed that "Javascript's scoping rules are horrible". If you are unwilling to support that assertion, that's up to you.
  Let's be honest here. You actually don't have any reasons. You just heard that ridiculous meme and parroted it back.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
41. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by phantomfive · 2014-01-17 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  It was your criticism. You claimed that "Javascript's scoping rules are horrible"
  To be honest, I have very little hope of having a reasonable conversation with you on the topic of programming languages.
  
  Ask yourself when you last lost an argument. If the answer is a long, long time ago, you fit firmly in the retard category.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
42. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by narcc · 2014-01-17 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, I have very little hope of having a reasonable conversation with you on the topic of programming languages.
  
  I was thinking the same thing. So far, all I can get out of you is "it sucks!" or "you suck!". If you want a reasonable conversation, you need to participate in one!
  I'll give it one last try: Why do you think that "Javascript's scoping rules are horrible"?
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
43. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by spongman · 2014-01-17 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah just like Typescript which is open-source and distributed as a node package.
  Oh, wait...
44. Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  A PHP fan has zero credibility and by definition no computer science education.
better than javascript? by schneidafunk · 2014-01-16 08:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

My understanding is that Dart will not be really useful until it has native browser support on all browsers. I have not used it, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious to know if anyone who has experience with it can explain the benefits.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:better than javascript? by Billly+Gates · 2014-01-16 08:43 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  There is also ASM.JS that Firefox is on the bandwagon with but of course it is against the interest of the 2 organizations to support the opposite as they want to dominate.
  Even if MS supported one or both in future versions of IE both Chrome and Firefox still hold too much a grip before anyone could adopt. It is frustrating as I do not trust Dart as it is highly tied to the chrome native platform and may have patents and licensing issues.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
2. Re:better than javascript? by LWATCDR · 2014-01-16 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  dart does have a compile to javascript option.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
3. Re:better than javascript? by MightyMartian · 2014-01-16 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? Dart compiles to javascript. Eventually native support would be nice, but since I can't see Microsoft being keen to implement anything by Google, Javascript generated from Dart source will remain dominant for some time. If, as the article says, that the generated Javascript is at near native Javascript speeds, I might be awfully tempted to give Dart a try. I know Javascript has its defenders, but man oh man I find it a difficult, even painful language to do anything useful in.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:better than javascript? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-01-16 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious to know if anyone who has experience with it can explain the benefits.
  I'm sorry I don't have much experience with it but the benefits should be obvious: it's not javascript.
5. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:27 · Score: -1
  
  Dart will not be really useful
  You hateful Microsoft fanbois are all the same. Why do you keep telling that lie? We all know it is a lie so you are insane if you think that if you keep telling the same lie over and over again that we will suddenly believe you. That is the definition of insanity. Please stop trying to ruin this site with that nonsense. As anyone with any experience with Dart knows, the JavaScript it outputs runs fine on all modern browsers. There is no need for native Dart support. It was made from the ground-up to not require that. Again, it is ridiculous that you Microsoft people keep saying that the truth is not true. Please just stop posting.
6. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Correct. I assume you're quoting the internal Microsoft memo on Dart which explains clearly that Dart does not convert correctly to JavaScript yet. Microsoft's estimate is that will not be working until at least 2017. With the evidence that has been released, only a liar would say that you can run Dart in anything besides Dartium. Microsoft has proven the useless of the Dart garbage.
7. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:37 · Score: -1
  
  dart does have a compile to javascript option.
  No. Microsoft proved that wrong. It does not, and it will not for many years. Dart will only currently run under Dartium according to Microsoft. Google claims there is a dart2js tool, but it doesn't work yet.
8. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Fortunately for Google, MS couldn't stop them from creating a plug-in to implement Dart, a la ActiveX. MS has a superset of Javascript called TypeScript and it's free and open: http://www.typescriptlang.org/
9. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Then why not use any language that compiles down to Javascript instead of Dart? What real benefits are there to Dart specifically that makes it better than, say, Coffeescript or compiling something more mainstream down to asm.js (which will run on other browsers the same way as Dart, since it's just JS)?
10. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Dart shines once the application gets larger. For practical reasons, one would still use dar2js to convert to javascript (I think not even Chrome has native dart support, only a variant called "Dartium"). What you get by developing in Dart instead of native java is:
  - Type declarations that are checked: really good when refactoring code, understanding code and have automatic type assertions, code-completion in editors
  - Removes some javascript insanities (javascript truthfulness is messy, so is the "this" value). You can easily see what code does by reading it
  - Some syntactic sugar (getters, setters, => operator)
  - very clean and uniform DOM working methods
  The cost is: compiled code size (working on it, but it can get large), not as dynamic as java (no 'eval' statement), lose very old browsers (and yes, IE8 is old).
  Basically there is a reason we have jQuery, AngularJS, Ember.js, Closure, Prototype, Coffescript, etc., all trying to improve javascript. The thing is, they make life better, however it is still seriously amiss. For a small side, jQuery will be great. Angular is actually awesome. However for code that one needs to refactor in 2 years of development (and probably written by somebody elese), Javascript is really hard.
11. Re:better than javascript? by non0score · 2014-01-16 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  I just read your other post, and you start to sound like someone who is uninformed. Chrome is the only other browser other than FF that "supports" Asm.js (technically speaking, all JS engines support Asm.js, so I don't know what you mean by "against it"). You can even run Epic Citadel on Chrome, and performance has been steadily improving.
12. Re:better than javascript? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  WTF?
billy gates by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 08:38 · Score: 0, Funny

Nice try Bill!
*Not* 25% faster than javascript by erice · 2014-01-16 08:44 · Score: 2

I was wondering how it could be 25% faster than javascript when it compiled into javascript so I checked out TFA.

Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript.
So it has 25% faster javascript output. It is not 25% faster than javascript.
1. Re:*Not* 25% faster than javascript by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  I was wondering how it could be 25% faster than javascript when it compiled into javascript so I checked out TFA.
  
  Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript.
  So it has 25% faster javascript output. It is not 25% faster than javascript.
  No, it's both. Dart can/will run natively in Chrome/Chromium. You can get a version of it that has Dart enabled at https://www.dartlang.org/tools/dartium/
2. Re:*Not* 25% faster than javascript by Shados · 2014-01-16 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  Dart has an actual VM of its own. Its probably what they're benchmarking. It can be cross compiled, but it doesn't have to.
3. Re:*Not* 25% faster than javascript by JavaTHut · 2014-01-16 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  See https://www.dartlang.org/performance/, in some cases they actually are claiming that the cross-compiled javascript performance outperforms the standardized implementation of an algorithm written originally in Javascript (e.g. the DeltaBlue and Tracer benchmarks)
4. Re:*Not* 25% faster than javascript by wiredlogic · 2014-01-16 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you follow the links in the article you'll see a chart with "dart", "dart2js", and "js v8". The native Dart implementation is 25% faster than JS. The dart2js conversion is slightly slower.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
5. Re:*Not* 25% faster than javascript by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, they rewrote DeltaBlue and the Dart version and so dart2js version is hand optimized to remove a whole level of indirection from the entire benchmark. What's worse is that they've known about this for a year and refuse to correct their error, because it makes Dart look better I guess.
Time to Get Out by sycodon · 2014-01-16 08:52 · Score: 0, Troll

Time to leave IT.
Nothing but an endless cycle of new languages that do the same thing with a different syntax and different order. The so-called advances in IT are kind of like the advances in MS Office...mostly rearranging the menus and renaming commands.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Except it looks just like C++
2. Re:Time to Get Out by SirGarlon · 2014-01-16 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Low-level technical skills have a half-life of only about three to five years. Meaning, half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
  Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
  By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
3. Re:Time to Get Out by CanHasDIY · 2014-01-16 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Low-level technical skills have a half-life of only about three to five years. Meaning, half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
  I think that's the first time I've heard "low-level technical skills" and "engineering" said in the same breath.
  
  Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
  By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
  What modest humility.</sarc>
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Time to Get Out by Kielistic · 2014-01-16 09:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How is this insightful? Of course all new languages do the same thing as the old ones. They're all Turing complete! If you don't understand that then, yes, you probably should leave IT. And don't forget to program everything in Assembler! Kids these days and their C. Just a crutch.
5. Re:Time to Get Out by sycodon · 2014-01-16 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  I look forward to completing my MBA and becoming your manager.
  How do you feel about working weekends?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
6. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  How can you miss the point that each new language is an exercise in futility?
  Doing the same thing over and over again, even with variations, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
7. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  And they charge you $160 for the textbook, which are the same as the last edition except that the text is in a different color and there's a different set of irrelevant pictures of astronauts and so forth.
  Wait... what was this thread about again?
8. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  How do you feel about being fired for gross incompetence? Or becoming a Scott Adams cliche?
9. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  No, time to make your own language.
  Be the change in the world you want to see.
10. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 19:34 · Score: 0
  
  half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
  There is nothing new under the sun. There never has been. What you call obsolescence is just marketing. Hook line and sinker.
  
  Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
  No, experienced professionals know that what marketing says doesn't mean anything. Experienced professionals make a life-long commitment, they aren't in it just for the "career" and to jump to the latest trend because marketing tells them to. They do things outside of work, for free, or for fun, not just because it helps their "career" and it is the latest fad.
  
  By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
  Experienced professionals can work in a team and make use of others skills *whatever their background*. Experienced professionals can see how so-called obsolete things are still the entire underpinnings of all the modern mechanisms.
  It sounds more like, you can't be bothered to learn any of the basics, you don't respect people as people but just toys for you to use for your own gain, and you don't care about technology or computers or engineering, you are just in it for a check.
  I would guess they stick you with the "new" stuff because you are too dangerous to be messing with the foundation, much safer to leave you putting up the drapes and wallpaper.
11. Re:Time to Get Out by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2014-01-16 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up! Quoting it for the AC-blocking crowd:
  
  half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
  There is nothing new under the sun. There never has been. What you call obsolescence is just marketing. Hook line and sinker.
  
  Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
  No, experienced professionals know that what marketing says doesn't mean anything. Experienced professionals make a life-long commitment, they aren't in it just for the "career" and to jump to the latest trend because marketing tells them to. They do things outside of work, for free, or for fun, not just because it helps their "career" and it is the latest fad.
  
  By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
  Experienced professionals can work in a team and make use of others skills *whatever their background*. Experienced professionals can see how so-called obsolete things are still the entire underpinnings of all the modern mechanisms.
  It sounds more like, you can't be bothered to learn any of the basics, you don't respect people as people but just toys for you to use for your own gain, and you don't care about technology or computers or engineering, you are just in it for a check.
  I would guess they stick you with the "new" stuff because you are too dangerous to be messing with the foundation, much safer to leave you putting up the drapes and wallpaper.
  
  --
  Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
12. Re:Time to Get Out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the MBA will be the one doing the firing because SirDipShit will most likely miss deadlines as he tries to incorporate the latest gadgets that do nothing to enhance the functionality of the application, make the whole thing harder to maintain and reduce the number of people that can actually work on the application because of the new, useless technology.
  You morons can't see that at this point, the "new" stuff is merely Marketing Department driven changes that are in no way actual technological advancements. Even open source stuff is not anything new but merely customized shit to suit the tastes of the developers. The term Yet Another News Reader didn't come about because it sounded cute.
  Did you buy an F# book? How's that working out for ya?
13. Re:Time to Get Out by Kielistic · 2014-01-17 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you miss the point of new languages. The entire point is the get the same results without "doing the same thing over and over again".
we need language agnostic hooks by FunkyELF · 2014-01-16 08:58 · Score: 1

Why Dart? Why not a language agnostic runtime and then have Dart target that?
Then when some new (or old) language wants to run in the browser you don't have to update your browser for it.
I don't have to upgrade my CPU to run a new language.
I don't have to upgrade my OS to run a new language.
Why should I have to upgrade my browser?... its time that browsers have a nice interface that any code could hook into.
How about LLVM or something as a standard?
I think Google is already doing this with Native Client... though I think they sandbox/sanitize the generated machine code rather than the LLVM bytecode.
1. Re:we need language agnostic hooks by marcello_dl · 2014-01-16 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of dart is probably to push chrome as the leading platform (which browsers are, nowadays). All you ask goes in the opposite direction.
  The LLVM as standard would be a great idea. Java ideals done right.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
2. Re:we need language agnostic hooks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Would be ideal, but it's not going to happen like that. asm.js is a slightly more realistic approach.
Er What? by DarthVain · 2014-01-16 08:59 · Score: 1

"Unfortunately it is agaisn't Google's interest to support it..."
Are you talking about Firefox or W3C? Because I am pretty sure Google is Firefox's single largest contributor of funds.
1. Re:Er What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  ASM.JS I am referring too.
  Mozilla is trying to submit it but no one is interested as Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Google are part of the W3C and view it as a potential threat to their own plans.
2. Re:Er What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  They wouldn't be doing so if Firefox wasn't contributing back enough to their own bottom line to justify it. Only one of the two is a non-profit organization.
  Plus, Google has been rushing out an entire web stack's worth of standards lately: SPDY, WebP, NaCl, Pepper, Dart.. the list goes on and on. They don't want to improve existing standards, they want to replace them with Google's own versions.
3. Re:Er What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  ASM.js isn't half as useful as most dumbshit web developers seem to think it is. It won't do anything for 99% of the web apps out there.
4. Re:Er What? by SiggyTheViking · 2014-01-16 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  99% (or whatever) of the web apps out there don't need a speed improvement in the client side runtime.
  For those that do, however...
Google misunderstands by ggpauly · 2014-01-16 09:03 · Score: 1

http://javascript.crockford.com/javascript.html

--
Verbum caro factum est
Why not just make JS cooler? by Gothmolly · 2014-01-16 09:12 · Score: 1

Make JS cooler, why start something new to fix an old problem?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:Why not just make JS cooler? by dingen · 2014-01-16 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  JS is already improving very nicely. ECMA5 is a huge improvement, and it's getting more consistent with each version.
  There's really no need to invent a whole new programming language for the browser. JS does its job just fine already, it just has some legacy issues which are being fixed over time.
  There's no way Dart or whatever language will be "perfect" or even close to something like that, so going for this approach serves no purpose at all.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
2. Re:Why not just make JS cooler? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  The biggest problem with JS is that for a long time Mozilla was the only company pushing the newer features forward with a large enough userbase to matter. By the time Webkit and Chrome came along and helped unseat IE, everyone forgot that anything beyond JS 1.4 existed. It's not like most web developers WANT to keep on top of their trade; they still hide behind IE6 as a reason to stay in their comfy jQuery holes and not learn the modern tech.
3. Re:Why not just make JS cooler? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  Because Javascript's flaws are fundamental and those in control of the language do not want to deal with them because of the backwards compatibility nightmare it would create.
  It's like having weak foundations for a building, you may be able to build something small on it and it'll be okay, but want to build anything bigger and it'll collapse, so sometimes you just need to pack up and go create some new foundations elsewhere on more stable ground.
Re:Broken Link: HEY PEOPLE WHO RUN SLASHDOT by rjmarvin · 2014-01-16 09:14 · Score: 2

Get your shit together, the top link of a prominent story remains broken.
Re:Broken Link: HEY PEOPLE WHO RUN SLASHDOT by amicusNYCL · 2014-01-16 09:17 · Score: 2

Yeah, seriously. It could use a little editing too. The submitter apparently wrote that it is 25% faster than Javascript, when the article says that Dart 1.1 produces 25% faster Javascript than Dart 1.0.
Wait, you're the submitter. Why did you write that it's 25% faster than Javascript?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
vendor lock in by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:26 · Score: 0

greedy corporate scum is why (that's the answer to 99% of today's world questions)
1. Re:vendor lock in by Gavagai80 · 2014-01-16 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Greedy open source freely licensed vendor lock in with the option to compile to javascript to work with all.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
Re:Broken Link: HEY PEOPLE WHO RUN SLASHDOT by rjmarvin · 2014-01-16 09:28 · Score: 1

I suppose the most honest answer would be, whoops?
Javascript needs a replacement by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 09:31 · Score: 0

I like Dart, I understand why it's useful and important. But even if you hate the Google and their obvious attempts to destroy the internet, Javascript is the wrong language for the "future". While I enjoy using JS for small things, it has many many issues. I think it's telling that while simple things are simple, the _best written_ javascript is utterly inscrutable to me. And what readability there is does not cross expert code borders. It might as well be Perl.
Re:Broken Link: HEY PEOPLE WHO RUN SLASHDOT by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-16 09:39 · Score: 0

Get your shit together, the top link of a prominent story remains broken.
This is simply to get you ready for the event that after you get interested in Dart and maybe learn and build something with it, Google will EOL it and cancel the project.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Plays well with JQuery? by drjohnretired · 2014-01-16 09:54 · Score: 1

I have not seen any comments as to how well Dart works with JQuery and JQueryUI, I have found these tools allow me to actually make javascript and client side programming actually work.
1. Re:Plays well with JQuery? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  You don't need jQuery, because jQuery was created to get around the horribleness of working with the DOM in plain JavaScript. Dart doesn't suffer from that.
2. Re:Plays well with JQuery? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Stockholm syndrome.
3. Re:Plays well with JQuery? by Shados · 2014-01-16 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  jQueryUI makes sure your client side programming does NOT work =P
4. Re:Plays well with JQuery? by non0score · 2014-01-16 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, the point is Dart more or less includes its own version of jQuery directly in the default library.
How to spot biased benchmarks: lesson 1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 10:31 · Score: 0

When a benchmark comparing language A to language B claims that code compiled from A to B runs faster than native code in B, it can only mean that their implementation in B was less than optimal.
Re:Broken Link: HEY PEOPLE WHO RUN SLASHDOT by gbjbaanb · 2014-01-16 10:40 · Score: 1

either that or "yay Dart, I love Dart, let me hype it up as much as possible with some slightly vague claim that I can say was a mistake".
Pah. Let me know when they make NaCl more ubiquitous in browsers.
Re:WebP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:35 · Score: 0

Faster Downloading
Non-nullable types yet? by csumpi · 2014-01-16 11:39 · Score: 1

Issue #22 solved yet?
Re:GC by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 11:40 · Score: 0

C or C++ is losing market share...
Google is not worthy of trust, period. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 12:02 · Score: -1

If the sudden ending of numerous Google products is not sufficient reason for you to be extremely circumspect
toward using anything from Google, then you must have achieved the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.
I don't have such an easily scrubbed memory, and I would not trust Google with anything of even minor importance because
time is the most valuable resource any of us have, and Google has shown no compunction about wasting the time of thousands
of people, in a most cavalier manner.
Secondly, sure it's "open source" but does this really guarantee Google won't be up to no good, as it often has been in the past ( "accidental" gathering of wireless access point info by the street view cars, etc. ).
Ceylon as alternative to Dart by javacowboy · 2014-01-16 12:29 · Score: 1

Slightly offtopic but Ceylon will run on top of the JavaScript runtime, so this an alternative to Dart.

--
This space left intentionally blank.
Obligatory by ChunderDownunder · 2014-01-16 14:06 · Score: 1

https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS
Why Ceylon in particular?
1. Re:Obligatory by javacowboy · 2014-01-17 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because it runs on both the JVM and JS VM and is, for all intents and purposes, a dramatically improved version of Java.
  http://ceylon-lang.org/
  
  --
  This space left intentionally blank.
Goodness gracious me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 15:19 · Score: 0

We're actually hearing about one of Google's projects before it gets discontinued.
GWT is still better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:32 · Score: 0

GWT focused on building web applications, and made a better product for it. Dart just seems to be a language. Until Dart gets something similar to GWT's UIBinder, GWT will continue to be better.
who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:56 · Score: 0

Currently to work in web browsers dart is compiled into javascript. When browsers start including the dart sdk I'll start caring.