471–480 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Redundancy is noise.. How is it any clearer to read?
How's that redundant? In C# you would just "var something = new object()", so there wouldn't be any redundancy at all.
"Visual Studio does it for me. I can see the point if you say it's longer to read but it's also much clearer,"
So he's saying that: Circle circle = new Circle() is typed by Visual Studio for you, and clearer to read. I don't think it's clearer to read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes please. No semicolons. And please make it look a lot more like CoffeeScript than Java.
Am I in the minority? I madly in love with braces and semicolons. And, madly hate Pascal, Python & Ruby for the absence of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what its worth, I felt really awkward reading many of your replies in this thread. You are our spokesperson for JavaScript and the CTO of Mozilla. It would be nice if you could talk to people without making disparaging and downright condescending remarks. I look up to you to speak for the community and to use judgement and character. Anyways, maybe I'm just being too sensitive, but I figured I'd say something.
I take your comment to heart. Sometimes I bite back too hard. To all those here to whom I've made "grow up!" and similar remarks, my sincere apologies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Dart VM will be a nice target for compilation from other languages. In general it's easier to put a typed language on an untyped runtime than it is to put an untyped language on a typed runtime. Before Google I worked on an academic project that built a small Smalltalk-like VM that was also a compilation target for something that was very close to unthreaded Java. Worked pretty well.
> I think the Dart VM will be a nice target for compilation from other languages. This would indeed be nice but it seems that google wants to push the language more than the VM. I quite get this because saying "you can now run your favorite language for the browser" seems much much more attractive than saying "look we made programming language 1001 and this is what you people should be using now!". > In general it's…
This is completely the wrong thing to do. Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Only once they have actively campaigned for this should they be adding new languages to the browser which fracture the web. I had hoped that Dart would su…
> Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. > That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Why would you expect either Mozilla or Apple to get behind such a proposal? Apple has a powerful self-interest in making sure the Web remains a second-best app platform behind iOS and desktop…
Also, going back to 2006 or so when I invited pre-Google Alex Russell and other JS hackers to Ecma TC39 meetings, Mozillans including yours truly have tried to open up the standards process. Mozilla, Opera, and Apple co-founded the WHATWG and set up an open membership structure for it in 2004, to create HTML5. W3C finally relented and internalized much of that structure.
So alleging that "Mozilla" is trying to keep the old boy's club closed is simply false.
I've cited hard, in some cases physical (as in physics) reasons for why there won't be a lower-level bytecode standard for browser-based VMs any time soon. I'm not blowing smoke.
http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/pages/20101122
A high level bytecode sounds a lot like minified JS source, with a relatively-few extensions to the standard language. Extending is easier than replacing or setting up a new, parallel cross-browser standard.
Your inflamed sense of grievance at "Mozilla" is misplaced. Mozilla has no control other than what users of our software delegate to us by trusting us enough to download and run our stuff. We do not have hundreds of millions in our browser advertising budgets. We do not have billions of revenue with which to influence people or pay for attention and distribution.
If we are really in the way of Web standards, I'll personally pull the plug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I thought nobody in their right minds would question Hejlsberg's chops or the work he did for .Net. Why not? C# 1.0 was terrible and most of the version since have been exercises in trying to fix it by piling more stuff on, in order to replace previous tentative fixes which did not work for any value of "work" worth using because they lacked generality. > We need less of them in mainstream language design and m…
C# 1.0 was "terrible" for the reasons of being practical. You can design the most beautiful language in the world, but if all of the features you designed into it add exponential degrees of complexity to the rest of the system (parser, compiler, runtime, base framework, etc) then you're never going to release. What language do you think was perfect at it's first release?
Algol 60.
This is completely the wrong thing to do. Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Only once they have actively campaigned for this should they be adding new languages to the browser which fracture the web. I had hoped that Dart would su…
> Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. > That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Why would you expect either Mozilla or Apple to get behind such a proposal? Apple has a powerful self-interest in making sure the Web remains a second-best app platform behind iOS and desktop…
Really? I thought that was the _mission_ of Mozilla. Except for the "stable" part perhaps, because that's quite at odds with innovation.
The track record easily shows that pretty much every single thing you have said is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was advertised as a replacement for JavaScript. It turned out to be a replacement for GWT. False advertising. I'm wasting time reading specs and code samples and comments just to figure that out. I don't like being misled or wasting time.
I'm curious what you thought a JavaScript replacement would look like. Apparently you thought it /wouldn't/ look like GWT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C# 1.0 was "terrible" for the reasons of being practical. You can design the most beautiful language in the world, but if all of the features you designed into it add exponential degrees of complexity to the rest of the system (parser, compiler, runtime, base framework, etc) then you're never going to release. What language do you think was perfect at it's first release?
> What language do you think was perfect at it's first release? Algol 60.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Go lets you take stack addresses. If you try to do that, it will copy the data structure onto the heap.
The compiler is free to optimize this how it sees fit. Taking the address of a value doesn't necessarily move it to the heap.