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

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#151

Post by epsylon »

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++.

For a few cherry-picked definitions of better and C++.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#152

Post by marrs »

kevincennis wrote: post #63
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.

In fairness to JavaScript, it is absolutely possible to write very large apps and keep them organized and maintainable. I think the issue is that JS doesn't have strong conventions for how to do that, so you actually need to make good choices that work well with your app. I have no doubt that Dart makes that stuff easier, but there's nothing inherent to JavaScript that makes it unsuitable for larger applications. It…

Javascript comes from a school that most people simply didn't attend. But it's actually ahead of the curve by about 10 years, as evidenced by the emergence of Scala and co.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#153

Post by pjmlp »

oblio wrote: post #148
pjmlp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go is a better C++. Only when it gets generics, real enumerations, dynamic loading support, proper dependency management for large scale projects.

It would help a lot if you could point out what you find wrong with those points in Go.

I already discussed them to death here and in gonuts.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#154

Post by rayiner »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #135
camus2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are looking for a structured language (for front end dev), Typescript is a better alternative imho. Javascript devs can still read it and it's compatible with any JS library out there. Dart not so much since the semantics are different.You can still interact with JS libs but it's not as straight foward as TS. I tested a number of options (GWT,Haxe,CS,Dart,Opal,Jsx,...),while i'm not a Microsoft fan(by a long s…

I agree with this very much. Dart is a new language; JS is an existing language, improved. Dart actually has horrible semantics in places. Only if x === true will if(x) run.

That's not a horrible semantic. There is one canonical truth value and everything else is false. It's the inverse of the Lisp semantic, where there is one canonical false value and everything else is true. I think it's better than the ad-hoc semantics of other scripting languages,[1] and more appropriate for a dynamic language than throwing an exception if a non-boolean is used as a predicate.

[1] And as a practical matter generates faster code, because it can be implemented with a comparison against a single constant.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#155

Post by ahoge »

pcwalton wrote: post #121
ahoge wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Dart] is not an open standard It will get standardized in the not too distant future. [1] > Apple dominating the mobile web Huh? Android's market share is over 80%. iOS got about 13%. [2] [1] http://www.ecma-international.org/news/Dart%20workshop.htm [2] http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/12/idc-android-hit-81-...

> It will get standardized in the not too distant future. [1] Standardized by Google, perhaps, but by nobody else. It will not be a multi-vendor standard.

How many years did it take JavaScript to become a multi-vendor standard?

Let's see... Netscape Navigator 2.0 was shipped with it in September 1995 and ECMA-262 1st Edition was written in June 1997 and finally approved in April 1998.

However, the 1st edition was done entirely by Netscape (by the looks of it). So, this doesn't count as a multi-vendor standard since there wasn't any involvement by any other vendor.

Looks like you're being a bit unreasonable. Dart isn't even shipped yet in one browser and you're already complaining that it isn't a multi-vendor standard yet. Going by JavaScript's timeline, it still has more than 3 years for getting to that point.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#156

Post by Bahamut »

chrisbuc wrote: post #139
Bahamut wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It adds complexity to the dev process, and I'm not sure of the benefits of said complexity. The devs still at the core need to understand JavaScript it seems like.

> The devs still at the core need to understand JavaScript it seems like. No, that's not the case. You need to understand the browser DOM, and the various APIs available to you, but these are presented by Dart libraries. If you have knowledge of Java or C#, then that knowledge will be useful, and if you have knowledge of JavaScript's functional elements, then that is also useful, but none of that is mandatory to be e…

But if you're using third party JS libraries and want to integrate with a Dart app? Seems necessary to still have to understand JS to integrate properly since you still have to know how those libraries' API works.

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#157

Post by azakai »

ahoge wrote: post #146
azakai wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow, why does it go against that line of argument? If someone else did something bad in the past, it doesn't excuse doing something bad in the present. (And as mentioned above, I'm not sure about those examples - while it's very possible some were released before being standardized, I didn't see a link showing that, and they are all being standardized now. Need more info.) Fair point about the limits of th…

> If someone else did something bad in the past [...] Earlier you mentioned "far past", but this stuff is fairly recent: Firefox 2 - October 24, 2006 Firefox 3 - June 17, 2008 Firefox 22 - June 25, 2013 > while it's very possible some were released before being standardized Nothing of this is in ES5.1. > they are all being standardized now Yes, just like Dart. > For example, WebGL was designed through a standards pro…

I consider 2008 to be far past :)

Regarding Firefox 22, that is recent, but I don't see a link showing it shipped something nonstandard and that was not being standardized? In fact I showed a link for the standardization process for arrows? Revision history for that page seems to show that it predates Firefox 22.

> Nothing of this is in ES5.1.

They are in ES6, which is being standardized, has interest from multiple vendors, is heavily discussed by multiple vendors, and has implementations by multiple vendors.

I never said everyone should wait until a standard is 100% final. Just like the Blink principles say, it can be perfectly valid to ship something that is being standardized, so long as there is interest from multiple vendors and work on standardization.

The risk is of one vendor shipping something entirely unilaterally, with no respect for any standards process. That's not what happened with arrows.

> > they are all being standardized now

> Yes, just like Dart.

AFAIK no other vendor has expressed any interest in Dart. The opposite in fact, Apple opposed including bindings to WebKit that would allow additional languages to JS. Please correct me if I am wrong?

> Anyhow, you seem to think that this kind of thing is a problem. It's not. This is how the web works. This is how progress is made.

I disagree. Why then do you think Google wrote the Blink principles about avoiding shipping something before it is standardized or has multiple vendor interest? Why did Google stop shipping vendor-specific WebGL extensions? In both cases Google is showing what most vendors consider proper behavior today, and I think Google is doing the right thing. Do you think Google is wrong in both cases?

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#158

Post by ionforce »

nfoz wrote: post #89

Sad to throw away the brilliance of prototypes to go back to single-inheritance classes. uck

How are prototypes brilliant? I'm not familiar with them outside of JavaScript. Maybe you could provide some examples?

Re: Dart 1.0 Is Out

#159

Post by sigzero »

epsylon wrote: post #150
chrismsnz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is proprietary about it? Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products, and if they don't want to there is dart2js which is acceptable. This isn't even close to the situation presented by Silverlight, ActiveX and I feel like you're being duplicitous by comparing them.

> Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products No they aren't. Integrating a Google-controlled VM into any software project (for example, Firefox) isn't trivial (you need lots of resources for it) nor is desirable (the technology is driven and controlled by Google).

You points don't speak to the statement. Browser vendors are FREE to integrate it. Whether they will because of the technical costs is a totally separate statement and quandary.
Post reply on HN