Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dart 1.0 Is Out

news.dartlang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#101

Post by pwnna »

RivieraKid wrote: post #90
tzury wrote: post #12

So if i get it right, the way "Google" sees the future, there is Go at the server side and Dart at client side (which is in fact JS). Am I wrong? I would expect Google, or at least, a team at Google, to take over NodeJS which is based on their V8 and expand it to universal server client language and libs. JS can be complied into go binaries after all, so why not letting people write apps using the same language. Let…

Dart is a better Java (that can run in a browser if you want). Go is a better C++.

Actually I wouldn't say Go is a better C++.

Rust is a better C++. Go is.. weird. I would even say it is a better Java.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#102

Post by azakai »

georgemcbay wrote: post #99
azakai wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least two problems with adding the Dart VM: 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors, so it should not be shipped in a standards-compliant browser. This is a matter of principle that most browsers agree on these days, see for example Google's Blink guidelines: http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features 2. Effort. Adding a new VM…

"The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors" Which is... exactly the same situation JavaScript was in when Netscape introduced it.

That's correct, but see my response at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736764 - that was 18 years ago, the industry has changed a lot since then.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#103

Post by azakai »

rdtsc wrote: post #100
azakai wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least two problems with adding the Dart VM: 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors, so it should not be shipped in a standards-compliant browser. This is a matter of principle that most browsers agree on these days, see for example Google's Blink guidelines: http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features 2. Effort. Adding a new VM…

> 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard I can see how many would see that as tail wagging the dog. But I see your point. And I agree it should be part of a standard. However I would imagine (and correct me if I am wrong) it is a lot easier to approve and go through the standard approval if there is already an implementation out there to look at. Standardizing on a hypothetical future feature via a…

> However I would imagine (and correct me if I am wrong) it is a lot easier to approve and go through the standard approval if there is already an implementation out there to look at.

I think you are correct. But that implementation does not need to be shipping on by default in a major browser like Chrome.

If Google would promote Dart mainly through dart2js, but not ship the Dart VM in Chrome, then I have no problem with that, and even the opposite - that would be quite cool, new languages are always nice to have. Then, if Dart catches on with developers in the industry, I think it would be very appropriate to discuss standardizing it. The momentum among developers, plus an existing VM that runs it even better, could be a compelling combination, and browser vendors could discuss that in a fair and open way.

But to ship the VM in Chrome far before any of that is a violation of the basic principles of the standards process. It sends the message that Google intends to use Chrome's huge and growing market share to force the market to do what it wants, instead of following the standards process. Perhaps that is not what Google intends, but that is how it can appear.

For that reason, I think that shipping the VM in Chrome is counterproductive if Google wants to standardize it, since it antagonizes all the rest of the industry.

> But it is also not vaporware.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I never said anything to the contrary? Not sure what you are responding to here - the quote you refer to is about "Effort", where I talked about the effort for other browser vendors to adopt the Dart VM, not for Google. Clearly Google has a working VM today.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#104

Post by Twirrim »

clhodapp wrote: post #74
ntkachov wrote: post #35

This is speculation: but JetBrains work on dart IDE, android releasing ART, I'm tempted to say we're 2 years out from seeing DART running on android. It makes sense from a business sense, have the option of running dart apps on android would free the platform from its java dependance.

What does ART have to do with Dart?

3 letters

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#105

Post by Twirrim »

vfclists wrote: post #73
woven wrote: post #49

Psyched! See our HN post about our Dart app (Dart rocks) and our team's disappointment with not being included in the 1.0 announcement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6735044

Shameless plug!!

Welcome to HN, home of the shameless plug and the nearly mindless rants.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#106

Post by rdtsc »

azakai wrote: post #103
rdtsc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard I can see how many would see that as tail wagging the dog. But I see your point. And I agree it should be part of a standard. However I would imagine (and correct me if I am wrong) it is a lot easier to approve and go through the standard approval if there is already an implementation out there to look at. Standardizing on a hypothetical future feature via a…

> However I would imagine (and correct me if I am wrong) it is a lot easier to approve and go through the standard approval if there is already an implementation out there to look at. I think you are correct. But that implementation does not need to be shipping on by default in a major browser like Chrome. If Google would promote Dart mainly through dart2js, but not ship the Dart VM in Chrome, then I have no problem…

> But it is also not vaporware. Sorry if I wasn't clear,

Sorry for the confusion, I read that somehow as effect on Google's part to integrate the browser in Chrome in order to have an example of it running to speed up the approval process. I see how it was a total brain fart on my part. Disregard that one. I updated it with actually what I think I was saying.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#107

Post by ancarda »

amix wrote: post #17

This is really awesome! Congrats to the team! We have a ton of JavaScript/CoffeeScript code and I really wish we could use something like Dart. JavaScript is great for smaller projects, but once you get a ton of code it really becomes a unmanageable mess. I think tho' it would be amazing if Dart could run on the server side as well. This way you could just have one language on both the client and the server.

>I think tho' it would be amazing if Dart could run on the server side as well.

It does but I think Go might be more fitting for that purpose.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#108

Post by cwp »

georgemcbay wrote: post #99
azakai wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least two problems with adding the Dart VM: 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors, so it should not be shipped in a standards-compliant browser. This is a matter of principle that most browsers agree on these days, see for example Google's Blink guidelines: http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features 2. Effort. Adding a new VM…

"The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors" Which is... exactly the same situation JavaScript was in when Netscape introduced it.

Which is exactly the same situation that Javascript is in now. The Javascript VM in Firefox has features that are not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#109

Post by pjspycha »

dgregd wrote: post #30
andyl wrote: post #9

Just waiting for "Works best on Chrome" Silverlight and ActiveX have already shown the usefulness of proprietary enhancements. No thanks.

JavaScript was also build as proprietary enhancement :)

People don't really remember what the Web looked like back in Netscape Navigator days. Back then IE replicated some quirks from Netscape so websites would look similar.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#110

Post by Bahamut »

Dart seems interesting, but its sponsorship by Google creates a major problem - what incentive does Microsoft, Mozilla, or Apple have to implement Dart support in their browsers? What about JavaScript devs who choose not to support Dart (especially since many still have to support even as far back as IE8 due to enterprise/companies/organizations/schools that opt for long-term support solutions for software)? I don't think good answers are available to these questions, which makes me hesitant to jump in as quickly.
Post reply on HN