×

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's Dart Becomes ECMA's Dart

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the trying-for-traction dept.

Programming 190

mikejuk writes "Google's Dart just reached version 1.0, but now it seems that it has aspirations to being an international standard. The question is will this make any difference to the language's future? Given that Google effectively owns Dart, what advantage does standardization bring? The answer to what Google thinks it brings is indicated in the Chromium blog: 'The new standardization process is an important step towards a future where Dart runs natively in web browsers.' and this seems reasonable. A standard is something that would be required before other browser makers decided to fall in line and support native Dart. It is probably a necessary but far from sufficient condition, however, with Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla having other interests to further. Last but not least, having the backing of a standard might just encourage possible users to believe that the language won't sink if Google gets distracted with other projects and decides that Dart is dispensable. However, a strong open source development community capable of supporting Dart without Google's input would be a better reassurance. If you want to help, Google would like you to join the committee. After all, it still doesn't have a Vice Chair. So can we expect to see ECMA CoffeeScript or TypeScript in the near future? Probably not."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

190 comments

OK, I'll bite (0, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#45691083)

WTF is Google Dart?

Re:OK, I'll bite (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691093)

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691139)

So it's some sort of Microsoft malware? Why is Google interested in it?

Re:OK, I'll bite (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691267)

WTF is bing.com? Is it the new goats.cx? I am not checking it until the comment get moderated.

Re:OK, I'll bite (1, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#45691307)

It's Microsoft's attempt to mirror Google.com.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0, Troll)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 months ago | (#45691757)

Actually I'd say in its current form its better because 1.- Their image search seems to be better at giving you what you are looking for which probably ties to 2.- the SEO scum don't seem to be able to "game" the results nearly as bad with Bing as they can with Google.

Now is it because Bing is better at blocking the SEOs, or is it because Google is a juicer target than Bing so you have like Windows versus Linux more targeting the former than the latter? Who knows, all I personally care about is the results and I get a hell of a lot less "Miley Cyrus iPod iPhone (insert what you searched for here) Android Tablet designer handbags" SEO spam and a lot more of what I'm actually looking for with Bing than I do Google. Hell the last time i tried to find a product review for an obscure product on Google all i got was SEO spam.

As for TFA? Unless its taken over by somebody else? Sorry, kinda don't trust Google at this point, not after they changed their TOS and started bugging the shit out of me to tie my real name to everything so badly i had to set up a separate Gmail just for my Android phone and a separate browser on my desktop for YouTube just to keep from getting the "Are you SURE you don't want your real name used?" bullshit constantly. Yes I know you have to please the stockholders Google but you used to be this cool mad scientist "throw shit and see what sticks" kinda company, now you are coming off as kinda creepy and stalkerish. Cut it out,okay? No means no.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691845)

Ah, the resident piece of shit Microsoft shill must have gotten a notification. Fuck, you disgust me.

Re:OK, I'll bite (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#45692035)

Lots of people don't like how Google is handling the integration of all their services, including social media. Certainly I'm not a fan of the whole "real name" thing, having been online for so long I know how that story ends. But what to do? They work in a world where this is how to succeed. For some things like social media real names work. For passionate discourse there are still forums where you can use your "handle" like in days of yore.

At least here is not another example of Microsoft's "stacked panels [groklaw.net]" from when they got their byzantine document formats accepted as an international standard.

BTW: some AC troll is trying to make me look bad by counter-replying in threads I comment in. That wasn't me, obviously.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0, Troll)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 months ago | (#45692273)

You got a stalker too? Welcome to the club, mine comes and goes, and has followed me all over the net. It is one of the reasons why i think ACs should be banned or at the very least make it trivial for users to block AC posts in the formatting. After all if they are too damned lazy to spend a whole 3 minutes making an account, can be as anon (by filling it in with BS) as the AC but would make them stand by their posts? then they are trolls and not worth wasting time with.

And dude, no ofense, but you should REALLY get a better source than batshit PJ at groklaw, okay? if PJ said it was snowing I'd want a second opinion. Look up the rants she posted during the whole Apple cloner bit to see how REALLY fucking nuts she is, she actually wrote that the fly by night company that was making clone Apple boxen was "A plot by MSFT to kill FOSS" and had a conspiracy theory that would make old twitter proud. So I really wouldn't take a bit of stock in a single thing posted at groklaw, she is just too batshit dude.

As far as google? no means FUCKING NO, and THAT is what pisses me off. if I say "I don't want that" and go out of my way to make it clear that I REALLY don't want that, quit fucking bothering me, okay? all it has gotten google in the case of me and my family is bullshit accounts made for our phones and separate browsers for video watching that likewise don't have our real Gmail accounts. Oh and in my case i've switched my emails over to yahoo and now use my Gmail as a spamdump.

I mean really, how hard is it to respect the fucking user's wishes? they can talk shit but MSFT actually respected my wishes, i said what i did and didn't want in Bing and ya know what? Haven't heard another word from MSFT about it. And I sure as fuck don't get a "would you let us use your real name so we can market your ass, please?" every damned time I check out a KB article, which is a hell of a lot more than i can say for fricking google!

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

Smauler (915644) | about 4 months ago | (#45692473)

You got a stalker too? Welcome to the club, mine comes and goes, and has followed me all over the net. It is one of the reasons why i think ACs should be banned or at the very least make it trivial for users to block AC posts in the formatting. After all if they are too damned lazy to spend a whole 3 minutes making an account, can be as anon (by filling it in with BS) as the AC but would make them stand by their posts? then they are trolls and not worth wasting time with.

How does having an AC stalker affect you in any way on slashdot? Just ignore them....

There are also decent reasons for not logging in everywhere.

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

lucm (889690) | about 4 months ago | (#45692477)

Their image search seems to be better at giving you what you are looking for which probably ties to

I agree with this. Bing is a lot better than Google for image search; the results are more relevant but also the GUI is better.

Lately I found out that the maps are also better on Bing. The new Google maps is retarded; when I search for something nearby like a Starbucks it shows some random results that are pretty far, and when I try to get directions between two cities the first option they give is a flight... When I want to fly from one city to another I go on Expedia or Delta; what are the odds that I would use Google map for that? That's the kind of "feature" that people with too much time on their hands come up with.

Google search is still better but Microsoft is catching up pretty fast on various areas where Google used to dominate. Not so long ago Chrome was so much better than IE, now it's not that obvious. Same for Gmail vs Hotmail, or Google Apps vs Office365. It's like Google is dumbing down their products and is focusing on the ads business while Microsoft is rolling out improved stuff all the time. One does not need to be a Microsoft shill to see that.

Now if Microsoft could either bring back the Start button or fix the search in Windows 8.1 it would help make these claims more convincing...

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692027)

You mean like how Linux is a piss poor attempt to mirror real UNIX? Ok, got it.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691597)

Why was this modded down?

Re:OK, I'll bite (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691157)

Dart is Google's attempt to replace Javascript. They're doing this because Javascript is a shitty language.

Re:OK, I'll bite (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691227)

Dart is Google's attempt to replace Javascript. They're doing this because Javascript is a shitty language.

They're doing this because:
- they are going to try to monetize it.
- they can't get developers to write stuff for ChromiumOS if it only runs on ChromiumOS.
- it will natively search and report on your web pages.
- their 'Go' language didn't go anywhere.
- Google has an inherent need to have some sort of impact on (and therefore control over) whatever anyone does on the internet.
- releasing version 1.0 means a Google product is finally out of perpetual beta.

Re:OK, I'll bite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691241)

-1 retard

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 months ago | (#45691271)

- they can't get developers to write stuff for ChromiumOS if it only runs on ChromiumOS.
- their 'Go' language didn't go anywhere.

These two pretty much cover it.

Re:OK, I'll bite (2)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 4 months ago | (#45691459)

The main problem with Go was, ironically, that it was ungoogleable.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Azure Flash (2440904) | about 4 months ago | (#45691501)

Having to add "programming language" to your search query hardly makes it ungoogleable

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691943)

It needs better software development tools for Go and Dart! Visual Studio is a really good development for Windows! Android Studio is a really good development tool for Android!

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691567)

True. I believe that was one of the major problems with D too.

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about 4 months ago | (#45691317)

+1 for this excellent list. As a web developer I have no interest in figuring out a new language when Javascript has all the potential in the world.

Re:OK, I'll bite (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#45691349)

Obviously, given Google's product areas, an improved replacemen for javascript is not exactly altruism. However, do you have any evidence to the effect that 'Dart' advances Google's control except by making 'web apps' better and/or easier?

Any sign of them attempting to make Dart Chromium-only or somehow favored by Chromium's architecture in a way that will freeze out IE and FF? Any dependence on the mothership implied by either a dart-language program or support for dart in a browser or elsewhere?

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691383)

However, do you have any evidence to the effect that 'Dart' advances Google's control except by making 'web apps' better and/or easier?

Their products are the only ones supporting it?

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691523)

However, do you have any evidence to the effect that 'Dart' advances Google's control except by making 'web apps' better and/or easier?

Their products are the only ones supporting it?

It compiles to Javascript. Are you saying other browsers don't support Javascript?

Re:OK, I'll bite (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#45691579)

Dart is available under the BSD 3-Clause license [google.com], so if they are poisoning the well for other adopters, it's by subtler means, and 'dart2js' is designed to do exactly what it sounds like, for compatibility with any remotely recent JS implementation.

I'm not seeing the lock-in here, though they haven't stirred enough buzz to get it more widely adopted.

Again, I hardly suspect them of altruism; but they don't seem to think that they have the power to push a 'Google only' JS replacement, and so would rather try to improve webapps generally, even on competitors' browsers, as a strategic move against platform-native applications.

Malware (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691285)

That and Javascripts has so many holes in it, considering Google's solution is about the same, I would agree to dump the project to the community where it may be more trusted. Part of the problem is Google has abused open source and continues to do so. And as the story mentions Google isn't to be trusted, they seem to have nothing but a mad scientist scheme behind everything they do.

Re:OK, I'll bite (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691329)

Dart is Google's attempt to replace Javascript. They're doing this because Javascript is a shitty language.

No... Dart is a shitty language. javascript is a web scripting language, albeit one that lacks the OOP syntactic sugar Java and C# weenies enjoy circle jerking over.

I was going to learn Spanish a couple of years back but instead I invented a whole new language called 'Spanglish' that is basically English with some Spanish words. Can't believe that people are still speaking Spanish. I'm going to have myself a nerdy little tantrum about that any second now...

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691559)

^^^ Strong evidence in support of the thesis, "It only makes you laugh if it's true."

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691639)

No, Javascript is a shitty language.

Re:OK, I'll bite (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691673)

Javascript is a shitty language. It has full object support, just based on prototypes instead of something sane. I do not know what it is about web "developers" that makes them like shitty languages like PHP and javascript, but they are. Aside from very poorly definitions of "standard" functions, both have so many side effects and scoping issues that it's a wonder anything ever got written with them. Not that anyone writes stuff based on javascript's "standard" library. No, you NEED to use a third party cross platform lib like jquery because the language is so poorly implemented too.

Javascript was an accident. It wasn't and isn't particularly suited to ANY task, let alone the web. People have hacked together some decent solutions, but the fact remains that js's design has been an anchor around web browsers and web development in general.

Not saying dart is any good either, but that doesn't make javascript good.

Re:OK, I'll bite (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692017)

Javascript is a fine language. Javascript mostly gets a bad rap from the in browser DOM API (or lack of (thanks web standard politics)); and the fact that developer's only really learn VERY basic Javascript and spend all of their time manipulating the shitty browser DOM. I mean no one would like python, C, Java, etc if all you ever did with it was basic XML manipulation.

Go checkout Nodejs or some other non-browser implementation of Javascript. It's a really remarkable language.

P.S. saying it's the way it handles object generation is not sane is very wrong; in a fully interpreted language doing the object generation from a prototype allows flexability that traditional class definitions just won't allow, and is really the only sane way you can do it. And you can do things that blow Java/C++ developers' minds.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692075)

Isn't that like saying "he's really a nice guy if only he didn't drink so much? You can't separate JavaScript from the DOM and say that it isn't so bad. The two go together whether you like it or not.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692251)

The DOM is an API / binding like any other library binding. Run Python or Ruby in the browser and you will need a DOM interface, run Javascript on a server and you do not.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692201)

And you can do things that blow Java/C++ developers' minds.

Hence... Dart. Duplicating the class based inheritance of Java for the benefit of developers who mistake ingrained familiarity for sanity. The same people who howl to the four winds that it's impossible to use any language with late binding that lacks the comfortably familiar straight-jacket of a static type system. Javascript and the web have come along just fine while Java and C# (the designs of which were heavily influenced by the fanciful academic horse-shit du-jour),,, err...

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 4 months ago | (#45692285)

I do not know what it is about web "developers" that makes them like shitty languages like PHP and javascript...

As one of these developers, I would like to hear your suggestions on what language I should use instead of Javascript to modify web content without forcing a page reload. Should I port all my stuff to Flash?

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692559)

Maybe you ought to catch up to modern Javascript. It sounds like you're still looking at the version from 1999. Also, you don't have to use Javascript directly anymore, you can compile down into it using Typescript, Emscripten, and other LLVM tools so you don't HAVE to code directly in Javascript.

I honestly think that people's beefs with Javascript boil down to a lack of interest in learning what modern Javascript looks like... kind of like all those people who haven't seen Java since 1.4, C++ since the early 90's, etc.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691615)

Javascript is a glorious, expressive and straightforward language. Unfortunately, it also allows shitty developers to write shitty code.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691231)

It's a robotic ad delivery vehicle.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691425)

More like Eczema Fart!

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691911)

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

But seriously, I'm a full-time Dart developer, and Google knew damn well that was a bad name for SEO, but they picked it anyway. Fuck them for making searching for help with their language impossible with their own search engine. I thought the asinine name Go taught them a lesson, but instead they decide to fuck over all of us again by not allowing us to search. Every single damn day I get angry when I can't search for help with the language.

The day that slashdot died (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691127)

holy fuck this looks like complete asshole and feels like digg

bye bye american pie

Why would you do unpaid work for Google (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691149)

Go find an open source project that actually matters.

Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691201)

Earlier versions of C# are also an ECMA standard, but nobody cares either way. It's like looking for a sales bullet point which doesn't make any practical difference.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

StormReaver (59959) | about 4 months ago | (#45692155)

Earlier versions of C# are also an ECMA standard, but nobody cares either way.

More than that: after the OOXML ECMA debacle, no one takes ECMA seriously anymore. Submitting a standard to EMCA now is like announcing that your blue-chip company is selling penny stocks.

Re:Who cares? (2)

powerpopolon (1781920) | about 4 months ago | (#45692443)

Earlier versions of C# are also an ECMA standard, but nobody cares either way. It's like looking for a sales bullet point which doesn't make any practical difference.

Agreed but this might be more Mircosoft's fault than ECMA's:
  - MS did not bother to submit to ECMA any of the nice things that happened after .Net 2.0, like LINQ or async/await
  - The MS "Community Promise" not to assert patents on the standard is somewhat convoluted and lacking. It obviously doesn't cover anything past .Net 2,0
Thus the ECMA .Net standard only allows you to implement a limited subset and .Net and maybe not be sued for patent infringement by Microsoft. Nothing indicates Google is going to play these kind of games with the Dart standard.

ECMA also standardizes Javascript and this standard tends to be implemented by the browser vendors, though somewhat slowly and imperfectly. So ECMA standards are not always irrelevant on all subjects.

Not enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691249)

Unless they can get Mozilla on board, It's just not enough.

Re:Not enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691815)

Mozilla will never get on board because Brendan Eich still thinks JavaScript is a decent language. Yes, he's that fucking retarded.

Re:Not enough... (1)

narcc (412956) | about 4 months ago | (#45692549)

So... what's wrong with it?

Re:Not enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692611)

They haven't looked at Javascript since 1999 or so, and don't realize that most people's gripes are either address, or would have been address long ago if Google wasn't wasting time on Dart and NaCl, Mozilla didn't have to revamp their entire browser, and Microsoft didn't have to entirely create a whole new browser.

Is it better than Javascript? (1)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | about 4 months ago | (#45691261)

I don't much like Javascript, but I haven't taken the time to look Dart over.
I do think the word standard should be better standardized.

Re:Is it better than Javascript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691331)

Tools for developing Dart are already superior compared to JavaScript. Even though Dart is optionally typed, the typed parts of your code can be as strong as any other typed language.

If you are used to strong typing, Dart suits you, after all it's developed with IDE in conjunction with the language.

However, if you don't need easy refactoring, semantic checking while coding etc, then Dart is not for you.

Re:Is it better than Javascript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692295)

> Tools for developing Dart

But too bad people like Seth decided that you should not be allowed to run those tools on any common server OS. The Google kids just don't damn get it. The real world runs distributions like SUSE, Red Hat or Debian. The Google punks, like Seth, say that only people that are out of touch with the modern web want to run those "ancient elder systems" (to use his insulting term). They're wrong. They just don't have enough experience to understand that they're wrong. Dart will never succeed with that anti-server policy. As it stands now, the tools not only suck. You simply can't run them. Well, that is unless you use Ubuntu or Windows. Guess what, real developers don't use those unstable pieces of crap. We're too busy getting real work done. To Seth and his immature ilk, go screw yourselves. You killed Dart. It is a nice language, but your childish decisions have killed it.

Let me translate (1)

mha (1305) | about 4 months ago | (#45691381)

"I don't much like Javascript" translates to "I know very little or nothing about Javascript and I'm unwilling to learn".

There - how about some honesty?

PS: Obligatory link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=douglas%20crockford&sm=3 [youtube.com]

Re:Let me translate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691607)

The good parts, JavaScript inherited from elsewhere. The bad parts are its own. And it has many.

Re:Let me translate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691645)

As a javascript developer for the last 4 years, no it doesn't. Javascript has a number of flaws and is inconsistently implemented by different versions of browsers and by different browsers. The lack of type safety when it tries to otherwise be much like Java means you get junior developers who frequently put strings in items expecting integers and vice-versa, causing big problems.

Re:Let me translate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692313)

The lack of type safety when it tries to otherwise be much like Java means you get junior developers who frequently put strings in items expecting integers and vice-versa, causing big problems.

How did they gain employment working on production code written in a language that they clearly do not know? Why do you not have asserts [tutsplus.com] to validate the input during development / testing?

There's gotchas and bugs in just about every language and runtime. Dynamic typing in javascript is not a bug or a gotcha, it's a feature of the language. You say you've been working in javascript for 4 years and yet you fail to realize this?

You're wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691923)

JavaScript's issues can be summed up with a simple google search inquiring how to emulate structs/classes. It's a disaster from the ground up. It's object oriented without a sufficient definition of what an object is. It's bad, brother.

Re:You're wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692117)

Eh, what have classes to do with object oriented programming (sure, many oo languages do have them, but not all).
JS is all about objects, but not about classes.

You've heard about language called Self?
Prototypes give plenty of flexibility.

Re:You're wrong. (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 months ago | (#45692837)

Didn't you get the memo [hastac.org]? classes reinforce outdated gender roles by telling an object what to do. Objects should be equals and ask instead of tell.

this quote sums up the situation nicely (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691301)

If you like Java and can’t get yourself to like JavaScript, you program Dart.
If you like Ruby and can’t get yourself to like JavaScript, you program CoffeeScript.
If you like JavaScript, you program JavaScript.

source [quirksmode.org]

Re:this quote sums up the situation nicely (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 months ago | (#45692855)

No love for GWT [wikipedia.org], the Java->javascript transpiler?

And if your retort that Google abandoned it, that's even more reason to avoid Dart.

Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (2, Insightful)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 4 months ago | (#45691305)

Google is gaining way too much power over what you over the internet.

The Internet is NOT google. They, Google, came along and appropriated a lot.
And oh ueah, have yet to really show there is no partnership with others who might
do user tracking not through software but through hardware.

Listen: Google has NOT been in class with you!

Oh, and all you MicroSofties: don't bother to chime in. I'm calling a spade a spade
and you better not like it.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691447)

They created their own replacement for NPAPI plugins, and got Adobe to prefer it over NPAPI. Now they're not going to support NPAPI anymore in a year. As a result, Linux Flash is now only going to work on their browser, and it hasn't really improved the situation in Chrome enough to justify the switch.

They didn't like other people's image formats, so they invented WebP, and got a lot of nickel-and-diming image hosters to start pressuring other browser vendors to support the format as if it's a proven tech... even though it's a "standard" that has shifted so much it's turned into such a kitchen sink of a format that everyone will basically have to use their implementation.

They decided that Media Source Extensions were good enough that they could flip the switch on Youtube before other browsers were ready for it, thus rendering Firefox unable to play hi-def videos in HTML5 on Youtube.. though it was completely unnecessary to do so.

They didn't like how long it was taking to make HTML2 so they invented SPDY. They then enabled it on the products that they popularized by using other people's standards, like Google Documents, thus forcing other browser vendors to support it or feel comparitively sluggish, even though HTML2 was coming along at the time anyway.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (4, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 4 months ago | (#45691885)

Every one of your points is partially correct, but just wrong enough to make it misleading, and the combined effect is very misleading.

They created their own replacement for NPAPI plugins, and got Adobe to prefer it over NPAPI. Now they're not going to support NPAPI anymore in a year. As a result, Linux Flash is now only going to work on their browser, and it hasn't really improved the situation in Chrome enough to justify the switch.

Google's PPAPI fixes numerous problems with NPAPI, particularly around security, because NPAPI plugins run in the same process as the browser making them a perfect vector for compromising the security of the browser, and indeed many of the major NPAPI plugins are so riddled with security problems that Google blacklisted them some time ago. And it is those same security concerns that are driving Google's decision to deprecate NPAPI completely. This is a good thing and it will make the web safer. In addition, NPAPI standardizes the API and should make it possible for a single plugin to work with multiple browsers. The end result will be not only safer for users, but should actually encourage the creation of plugins, since they'll be more widely usable.

With respect to Flash, Google didn't twist Adobe's arm. Adobe made its decisions for its own reasons; most likely because PPAPI is so much better to work with.

They didn't like other people's image formats, so they invented WebP, and got a lot of nickel-and-diming image hosters to start pressuring other browser vendors to support the format as if it's a proven tech... even though it's a "standard" that has shifted so much it's turned into such a kitchen sink of a format that everyone will basically have to use their implementation.

Again "didn't like" is misleading. The available image formats had serious deficiencies. Only GIF supported multi-frame animations, but did it in about the most inefficient way possible (storing each full frame, and compressing them individually with run-length encoding). JPEG works great for still images, but is far less efficient at compression than modern approaches, and also doesn't support layering, animations or transparency, and is limited to 24-bit color. JPEG2000 provided much more efficient compression, but lacked most everything else. PNG was pretty good at lossless stuff, but nothing else.

And once again, Google didn't twist anyone's arms. It created a better image format, started supporting and using it, and then put it through the standardization process. Your implication that it's somehow "unproved tech" is rather laughable. It's not like there's any new technology there at all, just a better repackaging of what we already knew. And it's not a "kitchen" sink format at all. It supports both lossy and lossless modes, with variable bit depths and includes animation (because it's actually based on VP8, a video format, this was very easy). It's very flexible which means it's somewhat complex, but it's actually simpler than the raft of standards it's positioned to replace.

They decided that Media Source Extensions were good enough that they could flip the switch on Youtube before other browsers were ready for it, thus rendering Firefox unable to play hi-def videos in HTML5 on Youtube.. though it was completely unnecessary to do so.

I don't actually know anything about that situation. However, I suspect that your description is no more accurate than the others.

They didn't like how long it was taking to make HTML2 so they invented SPDY. They then enabled it on the products that they popularized by using other people's standards, like Google Documents, thus forcing other browser vendors to support it or feel comparitively sluggish, even though HTML2 was coming along at the time anyway.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

In late 2012 the IETF HTTP committee solicited proposals from the industry, in competition with the Network-Friendly HTTP Upgrade it had been working on. Google submitted SPDY and Microsoft submitted it's own variation of SPDY. The committee looked at all of them and decided to pick SPDY. Again, you're implying arm-twisting that simply has no basis in reality as far as I can tell. The fact that Google's proposal was fully developed, implemented and actually in production on a large scale undoubtedly influenced the decision, but those points arguing for its technical merit... working code is almost always better than paper proposals.

It seems to me that you dislike the fact that Google does good engineering, designing great technologies and then doing the necessary work to get them standardized. I understand that perhaps you'd like it if nothing ever changed, but I actually like to see things get better.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, though I don't have anything to do with any of the above technologies, and my knowledge of them and their standardization processes comes from public news reports.)

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692835)

It sounds to me like you're downplaying concerns because you like Google... a lot. Enough to dismiss those concerns as "not liking people that work hard" and not caring about them the moment they don't align to the reality of PR.

I guess it's easier to defend a gigantic corporation that pays your checks then it is to consider the viewpoints of the people who see it from the other side of the fence. Much better to dismiss with nebulous and chuckle-worthy platitudes.

This is the same attitude that lead to Microsoft's downfall. I know because I've worked for both companies. I see the same thing happening at Google that happened at Microsoft.

But you know what? I really don't want to waste any more of your time with my misinformed negativity. If your happy with things the way they are, I'm not going to ruin it for you. Time will tell.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691551)

We currently have one of the largest Dart code bases and six full-time Dart devs, and when we asked about being allowed to run Dart on a server OS, their evangelist insulted us. He recommended we run Ubuntu on our servers since they decided Dart should require gcc 4.6+ and glibc 2.14 or newer. He said using Debian, SUSE, CentOS, or Red Hat is "what old people do." The kids running that company just don't damn get it.

Of course, don't take my word on it. Look at how they just don't get it in the bug comments:

http://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=11920

Dart will never succeed if you have to run a bleeding edge desktop OS on your server in order to be allowed to use it.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691609)

Ugh, just noticed that bug has been opened since July! We quickly built a very nice prototype of one of our mobile sites last April, but lost interest in it after our developers could no longer work on it with our default Debian install. The language and developer tools are a pleasure to work with compared to JavaScript, but we will not support a different server install just to be able to run unit tests/build scripts on Jenkins or to run dart2js on production systems. I just don't think Google is serious about Dart if they don't understand why it should run on at least one of SUSE, Red Hat, or Debian. I can understand not supporting all of them, but not even supporting one of them?

It's a shame to see how Dart has died like this because the language and most of the libraries are so nice.

Re: Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691951)

You should give-up on Dart now. I talked to several of the Google guys at Devoxx after the 1.0 announcement and they didn't have a damn clue. They actually believed that demanding I run Ubuntu on our servers is reasonable. I'm not going to convert our developer, QA, staging and production systems from Red Hat, that we have used for almost 15 years, just to run Dart. No, I instead banned Dart in the company. They're ducking morans(sic) for demanding we throw away 15 years of successful and productive use of an OS just to use Dart.

Re: Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692269)

Was that Seth? When I talked to him, he just didn't have the experience to comprehend why someone would want to run a stable OS. This stupidity is going to kill Dart. That is assuming it can ever recover from the damage already done.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 4 months ago | (#45691635)

So, people who actually want to get some work done are "old". Charming.

Re: Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691835)

They called me outdated (rather than old) when I questioned their overuse of Futures. The language is spectacular except when you try to do something where they force doing simple things async for no reason. We rewrote our Selenium scripts from PHP to Dart, and now they're five times larger and impossible for our QA guys to understand. Also, the language uses callbacks as often as bad Basic programmers used GOTOs in the eighties. I guess I'm just outdated since I want my code to be smaller and understandable.

Re: Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691777)

Screw them. We let them use our company name and logo, but then they told us we were not allowed to use Dart on Red Hat. They knew a major investor in Red Hat was our main investor before they decided to use our name. Then they told us we must not us Red Hat. They stabbed us in the back. The language is great. Their business guys are just dishonest.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (1)

technosaurus (1704630) | about 4 months ago | (#45692193)

IDK why they don't just use a static musl-libc (or bionic) toolchain... it could even be included in the source tree.

Re:Not to rain anybody's party, but.... (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 4 months ago | (#45691691)

Google is gaining way too much power over what you over the internet.

I remember when the internet was pretty open, until Microsoft got their grubby hands on it with IE. At first everyone was happy because Microsoft was giving away a decent web browser for free. But then they got greedy... What did they do again? Ah right, they created their own "standard" language that was only adopted by their web browser.

How quickly people forget the past.

A web monopoly is never good, even if people think Google is friendly. Remember, Microsoft was once held in as high-ish regard is Google was. But they changed from progressing internet standards to impeding them as soon as their game changed from an offensive one to a defensive one.

Google should review the linked story (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 months ago | (#45691309)

I'm pretty sure the number of ads on that "I Programmer" page exceeds the limit Google specifies in their AdSense guidelines.

The real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691325)

is it worth it?

90% the programmer in me says 'NO'. The other 10% is curious, but still, it just doesn't do it.

Sorry for the MS in me, but getting a proper async/await support for javascript would do alot (yes, I know about JQuery and promises, and no, it does not cut it).

Cost-benefit analysis needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691397)

Dear Google:

Show us how Dart is worth the time and effort for coders who are already proficient in one to several other languages to learn and possibly convert to Dart.

If you can't do that, then stop wasting our fucking time.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45691637)

Why not just adopt asm.js, and continue improving LLVM compilers into it? That way anyone can compile their language of choice into JS, and browsers can focus on optimizing for what comes out of those intermediate compilers? Instead, they want to replace one lame (but at least useful) tech with another equally lame (but completely pointless) one. Not invented here syndrome?

Correcting a language's deficiencies (2)

Baldrson (78598) | about 4 months ago | (#45691699)

When going to a new version of a language, the correct strategy is to come up with the highest level language one can conceivably jit-compile and rewrite the current language as syntactic sugars of the higher level language. "Pragmas" may be part of the sugaring (especially since there may be important pragmatic information provided by the lower level language) but it is better if the so-called "pragmas" are, instead, assertions written in the higher level language itself. The answer here is not a functional language but a relational one since functions are degenerate relations. Moreover, since one seeks to have assertions in the place of pragmas, the formal basis of the relational language should be sentence oriented. The sentence-oriented relational formalism most widely accepted across disciplines (including program specification) and with the most history is the predicate calculus. The brain-dead zombies will now start chanting things about Prolog even though it was never an implementation of the predicate calculus and tried to do things that probably should never have been attempted on a DEC-10 anyway. There are neo-zombies who will start chanting things about Erlang. Erlang is a bastardization of Prolog which is a bastardization of the predicate calculus. The best thing I can say about Erlang is that Mozart/Oz is much worse, being a bastardization of Erlang that is attempting to add relational constructs in without undoing the damage that Erlang did to Prolog -- when, in fact, they should have undone the whole mess, including Prolog, and gotten on with arranging a legitimate marriage of the predicate calculus with computers. If you are such a zombie, spare yourself the pain of reading further.

So, here is the high level idea (despite the danger of inviting Prolog zombies I'll be using its syntax for the Horn Clause):

The Idea

Parallelism spawns independent computations.

The Horn Clause:
m(A,B,C):-x(A),y(B),z(C).
expresses AND parallelism spawning 3 independent computations.

The Horn Clause document:
m(A):-x(A). m(A):-y(A). m(A):-z(A).
expresses OR parallelism spawning 3 independent computations.

In an operating system, parallel computations are scheduled for execution, allocating resources according to priorities.

There are also computations which cannot be scheduled until the computations upon which they depend complete. The Horn Clause document:
m(A,B,C):-m(A),m(B),m(C). m(A):-x(A). m(A):-y(A). m(A):-z(A).
expresses 3 AND parallel computations, each depending on 3 independent OR parallel computations.

This kind of data-dependency suspension of scheduling is also handled by operating systems.

By focusing on these constructs:

  • AND parallelism
  • OR parallelism
  • Scheduling
  • Dependency suspension

a radical reduction in semantic complexity can be realized.

Tools

Seymour Cray once said that much of engineering creativity comes from using old tools in never-before intended ways. The same is true of anything. New understanding of a thing's use is a way to create a new tool. Indeed, even when creating a new thing-in-itself as a tool (the ordinary means of creating a new tool), what comes first is its desired use. It is harmful to think about the fact that your hammer can be used as a paper-weight when you are pounding a nail into a piece of wood with a rock.

With that in mind, let us properly-use the Horn Clause:

  • Branching is properly scheduled parallelism. This is even done in CPUs with instruction look-ahead threads and their abort.
  • Looping is either AND parallel recursion or it is properly scheduled OR parallelism.
  • Class hierarchy is properly scheduled polymorphism.
  • Polymorphism is OR parallelism.
  • Name space determination is word-sense disambiguation embodied in a particular choice among various clauses for the same predicate enjoying logical success.
  • Exception handling properly scheduled OR-parallelism.
  • A database row is cached AND parallelism.
  • Numbers are duplicate row counts, dimensioned by the conjunction of the dimensions of their columns (some of which may be, themselves be duplicates when, for example, the dimension is squared) where addition is OR (adding rows) and multiplication is AND (adding columns). Negative row and column counts are a result the kind of negation in logic required for quantum algorithm specification.
  • A database table is cached OR parallelism.
  • Triggers void caches and originate with user input upon which all computations ultimately depend.
  • User observation demands computations.
  • Eager evaluation is driven by imputed (future) user inputs and observations.
  • Lazy evaluation is a failure of eager evaluation., And finally:
  • While caches exist and are under user observation, change in user input state does not stupidly void caches -- thereby allowing dependent computation to proceed -- it first compares the cached value with the recomputed value and proceeds to void dependent caches if and only if there is a change in value.

I'm torn (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 4 months ago | (#45691767)

I want to say I like Dart. I have translated some of my javascript stuff over to see how it compares. In many ways it is a big improvement. However, it still does things I hate about javascript. They are things that other people love like "you don't have to add semicolons but can but don't have to" or "functions in curly brackets with functions in curly brackets with functions... ad nauseam". They are all things I find to make code too difficult to read. I like the idea of the VM being in the browser but I do not like it limited to new languages. The browser that allows me to write in C or C++ syntax will get some SERIOUS love from me. Even if it is like Dart's side functionality, converts it to javascript. I'd love to see Perl, Python, or Ruby run without a separate engine.

Does it replace the DOM? (3, Interesting)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 4 months ago | (#45691829)

People keep coming up with alternatives to javascript. Everything from whole languages that compile down to javascript, to building new languages into the browser, to javascript supersets, to plugins that makes your browser run compiled code. Not a single one of these caught on. The REAL problem is the DOM, the CSS and how they interact with each other. Javascript is a bad language, but it's not awful. What makes web development awful is the DOM and CSS with all its crazy and cross-browser incompatibilities. Why no one tries to replace THAT? I'm almost implementing myself a new api that runs on top of a 100% width/height canvas tag for christ sake.

I'm not familiar with the Qt but QML ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QML [wikipedia.org] ) looks pretty good to me. Why can't browsers just implement that? Oh right, because it was not developed by google/m$/apple/mozilla so they can't guide it to the directions they want. Noooo, you have to have a completely new language that no one knows.

If they want to replace javascript so much why don't they just take the python or ruby runtime, bundle it to the browser, sandbox it and add DOM mappings?

Standardize a VM interface instead? (1)

dragonk (140807) | about 4 months ago | (#45691853)

We see new languages all the time, most of them don't stand the test of time or are supplanted by others as time goes on -- but at this point there is a ton of industry experience in supporting a standardized Virtual Machine language / architecture / (whatever you want to call it). There's Sun/Oracle's JVM, along with several other implementations of this VM interface. The JVM will support any number of languages that target it. Microsoft has done this as well with their CLR (Common Language Runtime) as part of .NET. The web already has the "Object Model / Standard Library" end of things, the DOM, it just needs a virtual machine standard and then web developers could bring, port or invent the language of their choice.

Re:Standardize a VM interface instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692301)

As far as standard "web VM" is concerned, we have a good chance of getting there - but it has to be done in a very roundabout way. The problem is getting uncooperative actors to cooperate, so it has to be done by stringing them along, one piece at a time, until the end result is inevitable. The vendors are smart, they know what's going on, so each step has to be in their own self-interest, even as they know the ultimate destination is not.

ECMA CoffeeScript = Javascript (1)

DaMP12000 (710387) | about 4 months ago | (#45691917)

CoffeeScript is nothing but syntactic sugar. I don't get why people are so excited about it, it is exactly javascript, with a different look. It is not a language of its own, and on top of that, doesn't run natively in its form and makes debugging a pain...

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692053)

Why would anyone want to use Dart when one can use existing languages and compile to JS/asm.js and get better performance than what native Dart VM has?

Not for websites. (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 4 months ago | (#45692161)

As far as i'm concerned, websites have little business using Javascript to start with. Now they want to add more? Sounds like Java to me which is for making applications, not websites.

If your site needs native performance then write a native application.

Re:Not for websites. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692751)

Wow... just... wow. Someone is not a web developer.

You couldn't have written the comment you did, nor read others' comments, in nearly so easy a manner, if not for Javascript. Not everyone, contrary to what you may think, would want to (or be able to) download and install a Slashdot application merely to read comments and comment on articles.

Screw you, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45692605)

You know what? Screw you Google. You promised us an open Android and then shafted us. Not falling for it twice.

Why the Hate? (1)

connor4312 (2608277) | about 4 months ago | (#45692773)

As a web developer, I'm quite excited for Google Dart and am interested in seeing where it leads; I'm not sure what's with all the bashing about it, except out of pure ignorance. Javascript is a very useful and neat, but rather strange language, riddled with tricks, "gotchas", and downright strange behavior. I do use it on a daily basis, and I've learned to love it (the NPM ecosystem is wonderful), but I wouldn't go so far to call it a good language in and of itself. That's why things like Typekit and Coffeescript exist. Dart looks like it'll bring more structured programming into the web (along with some performance gains). I've not yet jumped into it - learning Python at the moment - but am excited to do so, and I think it has potential.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...