Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Ports Box2D Demo To Dart

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the match-stick-pyramid dept.

Graphics 194

mikejuk writes with an excerpt from an article at i-programmer about a neat graphics demo written in Dart: "One of the difficulties in getting a new computer language accepted by a wider audience is that there is doubt that it is real. Is it a toy language that just proves a concept or can it do real work? In the case of Dart, which is Google's replacement for JavaScript, the development is speeding ahead at a rate that is impressive but worrying. To prove that Dart is already a language that can be used, we now have a port of the well known 2D physics engine Box2D, the one Angry Birds uses, to Dart." Box2D has previously been ported to Javascript. Source is available at Google Code (under the Apache license). Note that you'll need Chromium to run the demos.

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not again! (2, Insightful)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721016)

Note that you'll need Chromium to run the demos

As a web developer and after all the nuisance old IE's gave me and other web developers back in the day, this is really what's stupid with Chromium and Google's approach. They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser. I seriously thought we would had been past that and the old IE's were the last browsers that didn't adhere to standards. IE9 is now fully standards compliant, and what does Google do? Oh yes, break the web AGAIN.

This isn't the only time they're introduced non-standards compliant features, either. Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again, only works in Chrome. But with all the security headaches. It seems like Google is going out of it's way to copy all the stupid mistakes Microsoft made. I guess Google is at the same point now than Microsoft was back then - antitrust issues, breaking web standards and constant flow of news of how they're done wrong again. It's like Microsoft all again.

Micro$oft Shill (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721044)

TechGuys is a known M$ shill. Hey look, a whole bunch of anti-Google stuff. [slashdot.org]

Re:Micro$oft Shill (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721324)

The "shill" accusations flying around on Slashdot lately are getting out of control. Any position orthogonal to the common convention is accused, trashed, and filtered off the site.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (-1, Flamebait)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721384)

Bullshit. The posting pattern here is either mental derangement of clinical scale, or a paid astroturfing effort. Either one has nothing to do with any normal position, strictly adds noise, and deserves to be modded into oblivion. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you're right.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (2, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721408)

So pointing out that MS screwed up in the past and using concrete examples that another company is making the same mistake is somehow MS propaganda? MS did some crap (works, Vista, IE 7, patent crap threatening without stating exactly what is being infringed, etc), they did some good things (Win 95-8 (for it's day was really cool if not exactly that stable), Win 7, .Ne/VS I'd put in that list), but regardless saying someone other than MS is being stupid doesn't make you an MS shill.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722150)

AFAIK the problem was never "innovation", which is what OP is accusing Google and MS of, it was the way MS pushed innovation, and then subtly sabotaged efforts to make compliant implementations (like, by only releasing part of a spec, or by leaving the spec open so that various compliant implementations would have different renderings, with MS's being the only correct one).

The comparison to ActiveX is retarded anyways, since Firefox already has that: its called NPAPI, and its used for flash, silverlight, and all the other things that make the web go round.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722370)

MS needs to die. There's nothing it can do to make that need go away. Also, for everyone working for MS or doing work to make their products work or seem better: fuck off and stuff filthy MS/partner paychecks/bribes up your asses.

MS needs to die and its IP freed to public domain so that no other company can continue its work for money.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (3, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721498)

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you're right.

Nobody ever claimed such.

However, just because someone has reached a conclusion you don't like doesn't make them mentally deranged or a paid astroturfer. If you believe a position to be wrong, it's so much more persuasive to respond to the points one by one rather than shoo them off with personal attacks, which only serves to please those who already agreed with you.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721734)

I don't understand what the big fuz is about. It's not like they wrote a AAA game engine in dart, it's just an over hyped physics approximator. The demos aren't even interactive (and one performs @5fps). For all you know (no, not really) the bytecode it loads is just a predefined animation. So what if they are trying to do it wrong? Let them go that way, as long as they don't break support for the standardized www framework, I have no problem with them wasting cycles.
There are enough devs out there, with enough intellectual lucidness, that can see through the hype and understand that nacl and dart are non viable solutions. For everyone else, happy grinding fella. I'm not going to get involved with this.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722276)

Arguing with an astroturfer is useless by definition. It won't make him repent and convert. Though, yes, bringing out flaws in his arguments for others to see is useful too.

And, btw, I can [slashdot.org] see [slashdot.org] why that concerns you. Why do you bother changing accounts anymore?

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722242)

Bullshit. The posting pattern here is either mental derangement of clinical scale, or a paid astroturfing effort.

You know, you can actually read the posting pattern by clicking on somebodies name. If you had known this, you might have based your accusations of "posting pattern" based on more than a single post. But then you wouldn't have been able to just cry faul.
I might not agree with TechGuys opinions, but they don't seem too much out-of-the-ordinary or biased towards/against any particular company. I've seen decidedly more pro-MS/anti-everything-else posting histories for some other users.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722352)

When [slashdot] he [slashdot] talks [slashdot] about [slashdot] posting [slashdot] pattern [slashdot] he [slashdot] probably [slashdot] means all of those accounts, not this single post. Kinda like this [slashdot.org] .

a) Fresh made account - check
b) "Thoughtful" irst post with same timestamp as the article without subscription to help him - check, already third one for this acc
c) Baseless hate towards Google - check, how baseless is explained in the comments.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (-1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721560)

Any position orthogonal to the common convention is accused, trashed, and filtered off the site.

That word doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722158)

Yes, it does, one of its common meanings / usages is "something that is at odds with"; much like two orthagonal lines do not "agree" with each other, and are "at odds".

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1)

PaladinAlpha (645879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722676)

No. In professional literature and discussion, "orthogonal" always refers to independent -- as in, separated design elements are orthogonal, or this discussion is orthogonal to TFA. I have not once heard it used in the manner you describe, and find that implication to be, well, orthogonal to its actual meaning *grin*.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (3)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721606)

Slashdot posts cannot be censored or filtered off the site. We don't do that here. They can't even be taken back by the author after you've pressed "submit" and believe me, I've put a few I'd like to have back. On the balance I prefer it this way, and well, as the post accepted page says, you should have thought of that before you pressed "submit".

Shill posts detract. Pointing out shill posts detract. But there's nothing to be done. There are financial interests involved, and they will spam. There are folks who want to white-knight slashdot as a forum for Truth, and I'm guilty of that now and then even though I know that's not what it's for. As a wise someone once said (and I paraphrase), "the value of a free thing approaches zero over time". The moderation system works.

Dart looks to be interesting tech. No doubt Google will look to make it an open standard that anyone can implement - even IE. And that will move us closer to the day that all apps are web apps, which cannot be anything but a good thing. It's time that the client architecture was unhooked from the application ecosystem at the network layer. In fact, it's at least 15 years past time for that. That was the goal of X Windows (not to be confused with the upstart), back in the day (onion, belt, lawn, etc).

Re:Micro$oft Shill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721964)

"Shill" to dork leftoids is simply as "racist" is to normal leftoids. (OK, normal if you don't count the mental disorder [wordpress.com] .)

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721472)

It's 2012. Can we please stop writing "Micro$oft"? It's really, really juvenile at this point.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (1)

J Story (30227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721768)

Given the cost of solutions these days, I suppose it would be more accurate to write A$$le.

But I'm above that.

Re:Micro$oft Shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722340)

Can we compromise on Assle?

Re:Google Shill (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722102)

Anonymous Coward is a known Google shill.

Re:Not again! (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721054)

So how does a company create something better than the standards? Or are you perhaps implying that standards once set are the best for ever and ever? It's not as if Google is DROPPING support for Javascript. That would be...outrageously stupid. What exactly is your problem here?

Re:Not again! (-1, Troll)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721090)

The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again. There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away. There really isn't any need to broke the web again. And how to create something better? Work out a standard of it. Don't just create it, but ask others if they have some opinions and make it with others so that they can contribute their opinions too.

Situation: there are n+1 competing standards ... (2, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721120)

The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again. There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away. There really isn't any need to broke the web again. And how to create something better? Work out a standard of it.

What a great idea! I'll hop to it right now!

Situation: there are n+1 competing standards [xkcd.com] .

Re:Situation: there are n+1 competing standards .. (-1, Troll)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721134)

But that xkcd is exactly what Google is doing - creating yet another standard on the pile of old ones instead of doing it together with other browser makers.

Re:Not again! (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721142)

1. Google isn't claiming that this is the new standard. If they did, they would just drop support for Javascript

2. Insisting on a consensus before every new technological upgrade would be frustratingly slow and the whole process can be held back by one individual. That's not how technology improves.

Re:Not again! (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722120)

That has nothing to do with it. Do you imply Microsoft dropped javascript back in the days? Of course, they did not.

It's called embrace, extend, extinguish. You did not remember the lesson with IE?

Re:Not again! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722180)

Neither embracing nor extending are the evil part, and Google doesnt have a history of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Re:Not again! (2, Interesting)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722398)

Well, they did extend Linux as Android, and then started claiming that Android was "Linux on the desktop".

And then
java: dalvik <=> j++
javascript: dart <=> vbscript
html: nacl <=> activex
opengl: renderscript <=> directx

Now I'm not claiming that Google is the same as Microsoft, I don't think this. But honestly, I still have some concerns.

Re:Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722458)

Java: MS claimed their incompatible implemention _is_ Java. Google claims Dalvik is _not_ Java VM and uses same old Java language and standard javac from JDK for first stage of compilation.

Javascript: Please show me MS's VBScript to JS compiler.

OpenGL: You mean that same RenderScript that is basically a framework on top of OpenGL ES?

Re:Not again! (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721144)

So you'd prefer that all innovation be done by committee?

There is very little resemblance between what Google is doing here and what Microsoft did back then, and if you really believe that these situations are similar, I suspect you misunderstand Google's goals behind Chrome/Chromium.

Re:Not again! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721492)

There is very little resemblance between what Google is doing here and what Microsoft did back then

No, its pretty much 100% identical. Both companies added features unique to their browser using their seemingly infinite resources (as far as browser development is concerned) to add features to their browser that other browsers had in the hopes that you will use their products (The OS for MS, Google app for Google) instead of their competition. While the specifics themselves are different, its the same play from the same playbook.

I suspect you misunderstand Google's goals behind Chrome/Chromium.

I would have to say you have that backwards. For the reasons I already stated, it seems pretty clear to me that you've got some Google colored beer googles on. I'm not bitching about what they are doing, but I didn't bitch about Microsoft either until it was way to late. However, I am smart enough to know that its silly to pretend Google is doing anything different than MS. What they do in the future will matter more than what they do today though.

Re:Not again! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721884)

If what Google is doing, trying to fix the god awful morass that javascript has evolved into, and what Microsoft did during the browser wars is 100% identical, then what Microsoft did was ethical, moral, brave and admirable.

Re:Not again! (1, Troll)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721166)

The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again.

Microsoft does not just "introduce" standards, MS strong arms everybody to adopt those MS proprietary standards. MS does not do this to improve technology, but to preserve their abusive monopoly. MS does not play nice with anybody else, and never has.

There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away.

OOXML was ten years ago? Silverlight was ten years ago?

I am glad to see MS "introduce" all they standards they want, as long as they standards are fully open; but they never are.

Re:Not again! (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721358)

Please name one internet standard that is not based on existing "non-standard" software.

Re:Not again! (4, Insightful)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721418)

And when you submit your new idea to the standard committee the very first thing they will ask for is demonstration of existing practice. Standards committees do not design new features. They observe existing practices and extensions and adopt them, possibly with some modification. To get something standardized you must first make it, work out the kinks, show why it's helpful, and get people to use it in practice. Only then will a standards committee consider it for the next version.

Re:Not again! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722160)

As long as they release all the specs and dont act anticompetitively (constantly change the standard and strongarm vendors to comply), that wouldnt be a problem at all.

IIRC, a lot of the HTML5 stuff was based on stuff people had started doing outside the spec since HTML 4 was so limited. What, is all progress supposed to cease until the W3C gets its collective act together and makes an executive decision about what the web wants?

Re:Not again! (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722560)

IIRC, a lot of the HTML5 stuff was based on stuff people had started doing outside the spec since HTML 4 was so limited. What, is all progress supposed to cease until the W3C gets its collective act together and makes an executive decision about what the web wants?

They still haven't finalized it. Don't plan to until at least 2014, last I read.

Re:Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722636)

2014? Surely you mean NEVER.

They should switch to rapid release schedule and go race FF and Chrome version numbers.

HTML9, here we go!

Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721070)

They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser.

From Dart's wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] :

Google will offer a cross compiler that compiles Dart to ECMAScript 3 on the fly, for compatibility with non-Dart browsers.

And, in fact, dartc already cross compiles Dart code to plain Javascript. Once it's integrated into browsers, use it or don't use it.

It's like Microsoft all again.

Right, that's a stretch. You conveniently cherry pick details here. For example, NaCl is released under a BSD license [google.com] with source code readily available. Are you saying the same was true of ActiveX since it's launch?

Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (-1, Flamebait)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721116)

But why would anyone start to use this? Google has a huge problem with quickly abandoning projects. They just throw something at wall and see if it sticks. There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon. On top of that something being licensed under BSD license is a moot point if it's Google that dictates the whole "standard" without possibility of other browser makers to voice their opinions. This is why we have W3C and other standard consortium's - so that companies can work out the standard together.

Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (2)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721156)

There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon.

But your problem is already solved then. So what's the fuss over?

Nice Deflection (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721164)

But why would anyone start to use this?

That's called a deflection. You stated a point, I rebutted your point and -- instead of acknowledging me or providing more details to contradict my point -- you deflect it into a totally unrelated topic (everything faces user adoption problems these days).

I'm done with you ...

Re:Nice Deflection (0)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721390)

It's called arguing with someone who is paid to hold a position. It's utterly pointless. Mod down and move on.

Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721176)

But why would anyone start to use this? Google has a huge problem with quickly abandoning projects. They just throw something at wall and see if it sticks

I have to agree with you on this point. Google does that all the time.

Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722454)

Yes they do, but the ones that work they stick with ...

It's called real world testing, rather than plow on with a project when it is not working in the real world they move on to another idea ...

Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (1)

melted (227442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721674)

>> And, in fact, dartc already cross compiles Dart code to plain Javascript

Last I checked, it compiled "hello world" into a 17K line Javascript program. Not exactly optimal.

Re:Some Discrepancies with Your Bitching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722496)

For example, NaCl is released under a BSD license [google.com] with source code readily available. Are you saying the same was true of ActiveX since it's launch?

Actually yes. If you want to write your own ActiveX controls or containers you can do so without having to reverse engineer anything. ActiveX was M$' big thing in the 90s, they provided plenty of documentation to get everyone on board with it.

Of course writing anything involving ActiveX tends to be a painful experience, but that's more to do with the tech itself rather than any attempt to obfuscate anything.

Re:Not again! (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721076)

Couldn't agree more. We just got past the point where IE6 can finally be considered dead and now Google tries to make exactly the same problem. No web developer will be insane enough to target a Google-only platform given their recent history of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Re:Not again! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721114)

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of Chrome/Chromium, and that misunderstanding is blinding you to the very obvious differences between what Google is doing with Chromium (NaCl, Dart, SPDY) and what Microsoft did with IE. If you start instead from the right premise, and realize that everything Google has done has been open-sourced, you start to get a better appreciation for what's really going on.

Re:Not again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721152)

Awww did someone offend the poor fanboy :( :( :( :(

everything Google has done has been open-sourced

Great so they can force others to use the same licensing. This is somehow OK to open sores zealots. I'll never understand why.

Re:Not again! (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721682)

...Okay, and? Where's the issue with that, exactly?

Re:Not again! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722220)

You do realize that BSD license lets you take the source, modify it, and tack your own proprietary license on top of it, right?

Its not viral, like GPL.

Re:Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722702)

As proven time and time again, BSD doesn't die despite this and is still quite viral even though it can be closed and developed at any time...
BSD code lives with the most active developers. If that ceases to be the public, and a corporation throws $$$$$ at it to make it their own, it's their own right. If the code is only slightly modified, the public can probably catch up. Why would someone buy free code? why not let them? If the google makes a bunch of BSD code, releases it, then closes it later it's up to the users to decide then what to do. In the time up to that, google did all a favor beyond the standard expectation of closed source software.

TechGuys is an MS Shill. (1, Informative)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721080)

Here we go again! [slashdot.org]

Every time I click on a news story involving Google, I'm all but positive that the first post will be:

a) Posted with a 2.5+ million UID

b) Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live

c) Negative towards Google

Here we go again. Welcome back CmdrPony / InsightIn140Bytes / DCTech. Happy shilling. Hope you karma manages to hold out for more than 4 days this time.

Re:TechGuys is an MS Shill. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721320)

Well, Google is the new Microsoft!

Re:TechGuys is an MS Shill. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722052)

Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live

Pro tip: subscribers get to see stories ahead of time. You don't have to be a shill to write a long first post.

Re:TechGuys is an MS Shill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722226)

Yes, and they've got a little asterisk next to their nick in posting, just like you. Or just unlike him.

Re:Not again! (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721132)

You do know how web standards work right? It goes something like this:

1. A bunch of people come up with ideas that would be cool to have in browsers.
2. Some of them add those things to browsers.
3. After we figure out which approach works / is most acceptable to all browser makers, it becomes a standard.

For some reason it's a common belief that it works the other way around (make standard -> implement standard), but anyone know hows anything about programming can tell you why setting everything in stone and then writing the software is a terrible idea.

Re:Not again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721366)

It works more like this :
1. I'm a kid straight out of university, hiding in my dorm working on something obscure that nobody else seemed to be interested in.
2. I get hired by Google but instead of realizing that was because I fitted in seamlessly in that group of geeks, I mistakenly think that I am some sort of genius.
3. since I am a genius I must know everything better than the rest of all developers and with my godlike powers I will set out to try make right all that I deem less than worthy.
4. I come up with yet another solution and tell the world that it was made by Google
5. My ingeniously devised solution is picked up in the mainstream media because Google does do no evil.
6. A big army of Google fan-boys (containing all-that-big-companies-make-must-be-the-work-of-geniuses fan-boys) will adopt my technology because I am Google.
7. the world ends up with yet another programming language /solution and after a few years I don't seem to be able to convince everybody.
8. I doubt my godlike status and even the free lunch I am entitled to does not seem to be worth the cheap salary and poor working conditions.
9. I put on my resume that I worked for Google and the hiring manager for the other company must be convinced I am a genius.
10. And the world ends up with more scattered technology instead of solving real issues with existing technology.
11. But who cares, I'm not working at with them so called geniuses at Google anymore...

Re:Not again! (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721538)

Some of us remember when you designed software before you wrote it, rather than stumble through writing code and turning out an amalgamation of crap.

Some of us also remember forward and backward compatibility.

Of course, young'ns tell us all the time that we need to be agile and RAD and all that ... while their using a properly engineered network thats been pretty much the same basic protocol since day one and is older than they are ... yet they never seem to last more than a couple years.

Re:Not again! (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721818)

...anyone know hows anything about programming can tell you why setting everything in stone and then writing the software is a terrible idea.

Okay, pretend I know nothing of programming and explain to me why this is a bad idea.

Re:Not again! (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722512)

Set in stone? Really, so all the browsers did not update themselves to meet the standards as they evolved?

Well IE lagged behind, and is now playing catchup but they now all implement the published standards even though they did not before, and mostly implement the core of what will be HTML5

They all implemented what they thought the standard would be or should be, and then modified their system to be closer to the actual standard and it was worked out ... which is how it should work ...

Re:Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722628)

...anyone know hows anything about programming can tell you why setting everything in stone and then writing the software is a terrible idea.

Okay, pretend I know nothing of programming and explain to me why this is a bad idea.

Because your ideas will be completely untested. They may have crap mistakes in them that people will have to support for years to come, and a hundred million web developers will curse your hubris writing standards for stuff you don't understand and didn't check was okay.

Re:Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721494)

Exactly my thought when I read the last line:

Note that you'll need Chromium to run the demos.

. Now, a new language that doesn't have the heavy weight backing of Google (but maybe that's a good thing) is CoffeeScript [coffeescript.org] .

This has been modded interesting? (1)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721940)

A remark like is is modded interesting? Really?

I've been a /. user since 1996 and I'm seriously considering leaving this site. The user-interface is broken and unintelligible and the comments seem to be heading towards brain-dead.

Y

Re:This has been modded interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722308)

>> I've been a /. user since 1996 and I'm seriously considering leaving this site
Pro tip: When moaning about mods and using how long you've been somewhere as an argument, at least check wikipedia for the founding date.. hint, its 1997 =)

Re:Not again! (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722098)

There's a large difference tho.
Google has the public opinion still on it's side. MS had lost it way before they started ActiveX.

And technically - Google's stuff is usually slightly better and more open (because yeah, no matter what you hear, some MS still is actually genuinely awesome.Surface, Kinnect, Singularity, etc, are actually splendid, some of which are open too)

And that is why Google is currently a danger for the free web we still have today.

Re:Not again! (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722140)

Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again

And Mozilla's NPAPI plugins....

But of course thats different, right?

Re:Not again! (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722214)

IE9 is now fully standards compliant

No, it isn't.
As a web developer I was really looking forward to IE9 so I could finally have a single set of HTML templates for all browsers.
Sadly, IE9 only meant I have to maintain yet another set of browser-specific hacks.

Not to say chrome doesn't have it's faults, but they're nowhere near as bad as IE's were, and in many ways still are.

Re:Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722456)

Indeed. Way to prove that it's not "a toy language[...] that can be used", Google. I'm not going to uninstall FF and put on chrome just so you can tell me your niche language is the next big thing.

But will they abandon it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721068)

Will all of the housecleaning going on at Google these days, can we really trust them not to abandon this in a year to 18 months?

Re:But will they abandon it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721178)

This is google we are talking about. They steal data about you and then sell it to the highest bidder. This is why I only trust bing.com [bing.com] when I need to search for things.

Re:But will they abandon it (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721236)

Lmao. You forgot the smiley!

Re:But will they abandon it (1, Interesting)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721398)

Are you talking about the same Bing that came pre-installed as the default (un-changeable without rooting) search option on my wife's Verizon Samsung Fascinate? The same Bing that when I type something into the browser to search expecting google results like my unbranded Samsung Galaxy S does (nearly the same damn phone), I instead get Bing results that have nearly NO RELEVANCE to what I was searching for?

And that's the gods honest truth.

An example...
"teamhacksung ics build 14 galaxy s"
This update for build 14 was just done yesterday.

First result on Google: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=21498197#post21498197 [xda-developers.com]
Exactly what I wanted

First result on Bing: http://galaxy-s.t-mobile.com/samsung-galaxy-s2?cm_mmc_o=Vzbp+mwzygt*VAygtzlw*VyBpAgf+mA55Byf*VyBpAgf+mA55Byf [t-mobile.com]
Second result: http://www.hdtechvideo.com/forum/index.php?threads/rom-teamhacksungs-ics-port-build-14.48/ [hdtechvideo.com]
Third result: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=20794402 [xda-developers.com]
Right forum and thread, but takes me to page 716, where as google takes me to the FIRST page where the info, downloads, etc are.

And this is just one example.. I've had TONS that were way worse with Bing not returning even CLOSE to what I was looking for, and google returning exactly what I wanted in the first few results (typically the first few are so close in terms to each other any one of them would work)

Re:But will they abandon it (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721404)

ha I guess I shouldn't have actually read the thread before copying/pasting the google link ;) That takes you to the LAST page (since that's where I was.. on build 13 and decided to read the posts on 14 before I update). Oh well.. at least you end up at the beginning or end, and not randomly in the middle!

Box2D has been ported to everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721084)

Box2D has been ported to everything under the sun; Javascript, Actionscript, C#, Python... I'd think there would be a problem if it couldn't be ported to Dart.

The JS port (5, Informative)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721126)

The article mentions, box2d-js. The more current port is box2dweb: http://code.google.com/p/box2dweb/ [google.com]

Other uses for Dart? (2)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721268)

Is this a programming language with an existing shell script interpreter style implementation, too? If so, then I might have actual use for it. Basically, that means a light-weight interpreter (light enough to use it during system boot up to run rc scripts, so not more bloated than bash in its basic form) could be named in the script like having "#!/bin/dart" on the first line, and it would execute the file however it is designed to run them. I'm not talking about using in a browser here. For extended features beyond shell script code, it should have modules (in binary .so files or in Dart) that it can load.

I'm just starting to use Lua for this kind of thing now. Lua was intended as an embedded language, but has a shell script style interpreter which is pretty much a nice example of simple embedding. If they put Dart in a browser, and implemented it cleanly in the process, then a shell script embedding should be trivial. Have they done that?

I'd be more impressed if they make Dart do all these kinds of things (including directly run in a web server) than by implementing Box2D in it. That would mean a clear separation of execution from environment, something that Javascript only partially succeeded doing. Something that Lua did succeed at, but I still want a C-like syntax class for.

Oh, and I would definitely love to have a clean integer-only typing available, something I consider a major problem with Javascript.

Re:Other uses for Dart? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721510)

Yes, you can run it from the command line via the Dart VM without translating it to Javascript. Haven't tried #!/bin/dart style invocation though - but being open source someone is probably working towards it if it doesn't yet support it.

I've used Dart a bit and it really is a great language - not so different that it takes ages to learn, but IMHO a big improvement on both Java and Javascript.

Re:Other uses for Dart? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721742)

Yes, you can run it from the command line via the Dart VM without translating it to Javascript. Haven't tried #!/bin/dart style invocation though - but being open source someone is probably working towards it if it doesn't yet support it.

I've used Dart a bit and it really is a great language - not so different that it takes ages to learn, but IMHO a big improvement on both Java and Javascript.

It should not be hard. Someone already familiar with how the Dart native runtime engine works (I'm not one of those, so excuse me if that term to describe it is technically wrong, but I think you probably know what I am referring to) should be able to whip it out in a day or so and clean it up in a few weeks. They just need to set up a few pieces: the common language interpreter, a minimal library where needed, and something to make sure the hash-bang in line one is treated as a comment that can supply parameters. That should include the basic things a shell script can do, with a subset of system functions to do filesystem stuff directly (no need to run the "mkdir" command, for example ... just call mkdir() via a mkdir() stub), all integrated into a single executable that can be built as a fully linked static executable. Then additional functionality can be added on via some mechanism to load that functionality as needed (either explicit or implied), either from a .so binary (where the functionality would be better done in C, such as the remainder of syscalls) or in Dart itself. But the important point that needs to be understood and done correctly is that all the functionality needed to do what system rc scripts do should be doable as the system is starting up even before stuff like "ldconfig" is run (how about implement "ldconfig" in Dart as a proof of concept). The ultimate test would be to implement the "init" program itself in Dart, running entirely in a statically linked executable interpreter that is no larger than (my arbitrarily chosen size of) 4MB (and that's generous).

I have a program I wrote in C that gets executed by the Linux kernel as PID 1 (from initramfs). It is statically linked so no libraries are needed. It looks at all the block devices to find one that appears to most likely contain the root filesystem it wants to run (if the UUID is what it is looking for, the first to have an exact UUID match is it). That program then pivots that filesystem to "/" and runs "/sbin/init" to start the system up. This is all done by having my executable, and maybe a /dev/console device, in the initramfs image. What I want to be able to do is implement that same thing in Dart as a script file, and having the dart interpreter executable file there, and no other files or libraries, and have it do the same thing. Do that and then I will know we have a winner. This does not mean that "system is fully up" stuff has to use the same thing. But this "mini-Dart" should still be usable at all times, too.

The project also needs a way for interested parties to start communicating with them W/O having to subscribe to a mailing list. Mailing lists are "so 2nd millennium". I quit mailing lists years ago.

Re:Other uses for Dart? (1)

qxcv (2422318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722198)

Is this a programming language with an existing shell script interpreter style implementation, too?

An interpreted language bundled with a REPL? I'm not sure if Dart has a REPL, but it would be pretty trivial to implement. Fortunately the Dart specification *does* support shebangs (so #!/usr/bin/dart), check out the relevant section here [google.com] (they call it a script tag). Here's an excerpt:

A library may optionally begin with a script tag, which can be used to identify the interpreter of the script to whatever computing environment the script is embedded in. A script tag begins with the characters #! and ends at the end of the line. Any characters after #! are ignored by the Dart implementation.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721340)

Box2D in all it's ports is a very basic physics engine. While it's great news, and quite awesome it's been ported, whether it is good is different to whether it is real. VB is real, but whether it is good depends on what you're using it for.

Next will be merging high and low level languages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721452)

Then we'll have a Rusty Dart.
Or maybe just name the language after yourself [lunduke-sdk.com]

Is JavaScript really that nice?? (2)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721534)

Am I really the only one on Slashdot who dislikes JavaScript? Every time I have to work with JS, I feel like shooting myself in the head -> Little IDE support, no type safety, no compile phase... These things make it extremely hard to work on a large application base. In fact, at work we have a custom Java -> JavaScript compiler, which makes things a lot more manageable. Most of the bugs we get in our issue tracker are related to the web interface which is still written in plain JavaScript.

I actually commend google on trying to fix this part of the web. I am not sure if this is the correct approach, but we have to start somewhere.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721730)

Right here with you. JS was a nasty language when I used it ten years ago, it's nasty today, but for some reason in the meantime a lot of people have discovered the JS religion. Now any talk of possible successor languages is met with frothing at the mouth and gnashing of the teeth.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721732)

Am I really the only one on Slashdot who dislikes JavaScript?

Lots of people hate JS, me included. JS has just become inexplicably popular recently, I suspect it's due to bandwagon riding (marketers selling the cloud as a web service).

Netscape could have just used Smalltalk, Simula or even Pascal, or anything else but just had to half-bake something new. JS was originally invented just as a piece of glue between Java Applets (teh future of teh interwebs, this was before Flash) and the HTML. This pretty much explains everything wrong with JS right there, JS was not designed to do heavy lifting, Java was supposed to do that, JS just glued the logic to the page. The sloppy 'paste to fill in the cracks of other stuff' design makes it painful for anything more complex than the most basic use case.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (2)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721848)

Most people working with Javascript don't really know the language that well. It's easy to get frustrated that way, because JS's C-like syntax makes you think it's a C-like language, which actually it isn't.

There is a lot wrong with JS, nobody is denying that. But it also has its nice elements. And since every device on the planet is equipped with a browser running Javascript these days, the language really is here to stay. So instead of hating it, its a lot more constructive to try and understand it, so you can avoid JS's bad parts and make JS's good qualities work for you.

I highly recommend Douglas Crockford's video lectures on Javascript [yuiblog.com] if you have to work with JS and want to really get to know the language. It helps a lot to understand why JS is the way it is and how to get the most out of it without going insane.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (1)

petsounds (593538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722654)

The problem is that most people who love Javascript seem to love it for the bad parts -- the "everything goes" language parts. There's no classes, just anonymous functions. Some people seem to love this half-assed prototype-based OOP and label it with words like "expressive" and "powerful". It's not so powerful when you're building complex RIAs. In that case, it's really dreadful compared to class-based OOP languages. As people start developing more advanced HTML5 apps, this will become apparent. There's no strong typing. People love this. I get it...people loved Actionscript 2 with its fast-and-loose coding style. Hey, I'm not necessarily against weak typing; I like Ruby. And weak typing is fine for building quick prototypes. But it makes projects a bitch to debug. And let's be honest -- most people love it because it seems quicker to throw together a bunch of shit code really fast and get your small-sized project done.

But there was a good reason Adobe moved on to AS3 after Microsoft killed ECMAScript 4 in the committee -- anything beyond small projects was a huge pain in the ass to develop. [Adobe also made the switch for performance reasons, but that was more because their compiler was unoptimized, which we saw bit them in the ass later] When I code in AS3 and then code something in JS, it's like stepping back 10 years in time. Which it really is, because there's been no major revision to Javascript in 10 years thanks to MS.

And now we have compounded problems because of this. We have all these competing dev groups trying to make up for this 10-year deficit with ridiculously hacky libraries like jQuery and Coffeescript. [They are not ridiculous for what they've done within the limitations of JS; kudos to those people for squeezing every last HP out of that '82 Honda. They are ridiculous because they're ultimately ingenious-but-giant hacks on top of an outdated language.] And then we have web app frameworks like Ruby on Rails fighting amongst themselves about which JS library to bundle by default. This is the kind of crap that happens when we have standards that were made for the web of the late '90s. I'm not holding out a lot of hope for drastic changes with ECMAScript 5, or Harmony or whatever they're calling the next punt down the field.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (3, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721898)

Little IDE support is helped by building IDEs, not coming up with a new language that has even less IDE support.

Dart doesn't do type safety by default. There have been proposals to add optional type annotations of the sort Dart _does_ have to JS... and they were shot down by certain members of the JS standards committee, last I checked. Don't recall what the stance of Google's representatives on it was, but they weren't the ones pushing it.

As far as a compile phase goes, Dart doesn't have one either unless you're cross-compiling it to JavaScript. You just load your Dart code directly in the browser, which then compiles it. That's what browsers do with JS too.

So ignoring for the moment whether these things are good or not, I don't see Dart making much of an improvement over JS here, except in the type-safety department, where Google didn't exactly try to improve JS in the first place.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (2)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721942)

JavaScript is really very simple to use.

Build an object model from your data. Merge your model with your view. Bind your model, view and dat source with PubSub events. Controllers update the model, subscribed views then update to match and the data source gets an async update in the background.

Was that hard or complicated?

This is a known and solved architecture that can be applied to DOM views, Canvas views or SVG views.

If you want to get fancy you can add support to filter, sort or mutate your data. You can add animations to visualize this or not. You can use the data to describe a form, a blog, a bitmap, a chart a tax return or a movie review. It's all pretty much the same.

You can store your data in a DB and access it via REST or cgi or SOAP/WSDL or a socket connection. You can persist it with a cookie token session key or in client side storage or as OpenGraph meta key/values. It's all pretty much the same.

None of the above is unique to JavaScript excepting the client side storage. Which ever language you use it's all pretty much the same stuff and JavaScript does it all just fine.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (1)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721998)

Hi, Thanks for the response

I never argued that JS is hard to use. I only argued that it becomes unmanageable once your code base becomes large (e.g. more than 1 js file), especially if you work on a team.

Did you try renaming a function and following all instances which use that function? You cannot be sure that you have found all instances (especially if it has a similar name to a different function in a different class) unless you run the code over all code paths.

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722038)

JavaScript is really very simple to abuse.

tftfy

Re:Is JavaScript really that nice?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722262)

Javascript's two biggest issues aren't necessarily language-related:

1) Poor Javascript coders
2) DOM

Care to explain? (2)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38721558)

the development is speeding ahead at a rate that is impressive but worrying.

Worrying because...?

Re:Care to explain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38721574)

Worrying because...?

He's worried about how slashdot will be implemented in Web 3.0

Darts ahoy :(

Awesome (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722040)

but can it deal with a concave polygon?

"Is it a toy language that just proves a concept or can it do real work?"

depends on the work at hand

Re:Awesome (1)

BrokenBeta (1007449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722648)

Not precisely how you mean, but you can have static edge/chain shapes, which are like line objects you can stick anywhere and bodies will interact with them.

If you want dynamic concave shapes you can split your shape into convex shapes however you like. Then you can put all the shapes into one body and Box2D will move them as one.

Go and have a go with Box2D. As far as "fun to use" APIs go, you can't get much better.

An Open Source Proprietary Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722598)

An Open Source Proprietary Solution?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>