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!

Will Google's Dart Language Replace Javascript? (Video)

Roblimo posted about three weeks ago | from the shall-we-play-darts-or-javascripts-this-evening-at-the-pub? dept.

Programming 180

Seth Ladd, Google Web engineer and Chrome Developer Advocate, is today's interviewee. He's talking about Dart, which Wikipedia says is 'an open-source Web programming language developed by Google.' The Wikipedia article goes on to say Dart was unveiled at the GOTO conference in Aarhus, October 10–12, 2011, and that the goal of Dart is 'ultimately to replace JavaScript as the lingua franca of web development on the open web platform.' A bold aim, indeed. Last month (June, 2014), InfoWorld ran an article by Paul Krill headlined, Google's Go language on the rise, but Dart is stalling. Seth Ladd, unlike Paul Krill, is obviously rah-rah about Dart -- which is as it should be, since that's his job -- and seems to think it has a growing community and a strong place in the future of Web programming. For more about Dart, scroll down to watch Tim Lord's video interview with Seth -- or read the transcript, if you prefer. (Alternate Video Link)

cancel ×

180 comments

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

Here's what I think... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419211)

No.

Re:Here's what I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419263)

agreed

Re:Here's what I think... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47421005)

That's really good news.

If Microsoft's Slashdot mouthpieces are scared enough to badmouth it, chances are it'll be a rousing success.

Anyone know any good Dart courses?

Re:Here's what I think... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47421043)

Yeah a rising success just like Google Plus..

Simple answer is (-1, Troll)

mypcfanisbroken (3661963) | about three weeks ago | (#47419235)

No. Everything Google gets their hands on or creates ends up being a pile of turds smothered in 3 year old rotten turdonnaise, on a turdseed bun. The fact that the customer facing side of the NSA is trying to replace a backbone language of the triple dubs should be a wakeup call. Google has no oversight and feels like doing whatever they want.

Re:Simple answer is (1)

TFlan91 (2615727) | about three weeks ago | (#47419441)

Clearly you do not use or have heard of AngularJS

Re:Simple answer is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419733)

Yep, because everyone else that created and contributed to it are worse than chopped liver. Haven't you heard? Google is involved! That means they did everything! Forget about Brat Tech and the hundreds of web devs who have tried to keep Angular from turning into a sprawling monstrosity!

Re:Simple answer is (1)

irrational_design (1895848) | about three weeks ago | (#47420919)

Wait, I've heard of and used AngularJS. But what does that have to do with Dart?

Re:Simple answer is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419467)

I'm a big fan of google protocol buffers. Excellent project that is fitting many niche uses cases as well as general ones.

I'd argue that they keep their best projects internal and closed source before I'd argue that they release garbage.

Time to give us Google BigTable and the Google Filesystem.... then some of their Map-Reduce implementation please.

Can we get .... (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about three weeks ago | (#47419241)

... a 'Tower of Babel' icon for articles about yet another new programming language?

Re:Can we get .... (2, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about three weeks ago | (#47419395)

And clicking the icon takes you to 927 [xkcd.com]

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419255)

No, it will not replace Javascript. It will become another Coffeescript alternative that just happens to run faster on Chrome, thus further contributing to Google' mad rush to make a web that only runs best on Chrome.

Golang or Dart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419287)

Their is not enough free tutorials or unaware of them for Dart to take off, unlike Javascript.

Re:Golang or Dart (4, Funny)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about three weeks ago | (#47420953)

OTOH, there are plenty of free English grammar lessons available...

Just as soon as it does (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419303)

Google will announce the end of the project, and that we all have two months to rewrite our code into something else.

Re:Just as soon as it does (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419495)

Ala Silverlight?

No (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about three weeks ago | (#47419317)

Unless they can magically add Dart capabilities to all the web-capable devices already out there as well as current and future competitors devices, the answer is no.

We don't need another "This website is best viewed in browser XYZ" era.

Re:No (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47419431)

Unless they can magically add Dart capabilities to all the web-capable devices already out there as well as current and future competitors devices, the answer is no.

There is already a source-to-source compiler. So you can write in Dart, and then convert your Dart program to Javascript. Then your server can deliver either Dart or JS depending on the client browser's capability.

Re: No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419573)

But it runs best on xyz browser.

Re:No (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419607)

If you can convert Dart to Javascript then I don't get the point of Dart.

Re:No (2)

Lained (1078581) | about three weeks ago | (#47419741)

Simple, not causing disruption while people change the programming language (or start programming). If I had to wait for all browsers to support it, might as well not change at all. For change to happen needs to exist critical mass, Google just removed that from the equation.

Re:No (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47419833)

If you can convert Dart to Javascript then I don't get the point of Dart.

You can convert A to B, where A and B are any Turing complete computer languages. So, for instance, JavaScript can be converted to PDP-11 assembly language which can be converted to Python which can be converted to C++. The main reasons to use one language over another are performance and the ability to express the algorithm clearly. Dart is (slightly) faster than JavaScript (since fewer type conversions and symbol lookups need to be done at runtime). But the main advantages are that it has better scoping and is more strongly typed, including structures and classes. This also means it is more reliable since more problems can be detected by static analysis tools, and runtime checks can be more rigorous.

Re:No (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about three weeks ago | (#47419985)

Both JavaScript and Dart are strongly typed. A language either is, or it is not, there is no 'more strongly typed'.
Perhaps you mean static typed verus dynamic typed?

As dart is compiled down to JavaScript it certainly is 'not faster' than JavaScript ....

Re:No (2, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about three weeks ago | (#47420249)

Both JavaScript and Dart are strongly typed

Someone has no idea what strongly typed means ...

and by someone, I mean you.

Re:No (1)

bbn (172659) | about three weeks ago | (#47420509)

Nobody knows what strongly typed means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:No (2)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about three weeks ago | (#47420969)

It seems to me everybody knows what strongly typed means...

Re:No (2, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about three weeks ago | (#47420557)

You might want to look in the mirror.

Scripting languages usually feature dynamic, strong typing. (The runtime always knows exactly what type its dealing with.)

Most compiled languages have static, strong typing. C is somewhat of an exception, being relatively weakly typed. (It's easy to make all sorts of bizarre type casts, sometimes implicitely.)

A few languages are very weakly typed, such as Forth.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420699)

Both JavaScript and Dart are strongly typed

Someone has no idea what strongly typed means ...

and by someone, I mean you.

Assuming you know what you're talking about let's hear your definition of "strongly typed".

Re:No (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about three weeks ago | (#47420715)

Perhaps you should google?
There are two axises: strong versus weak and dynamic versus static.
You are mixing up strong with static ...

Re:No (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47420575)

Both JavaScript and Dart are strongly typed.

Are you serious?

As dart is compiled down to JavaScript it certainly is 'not faster' than JavaScript ....

Dart can be translated to JavaScript. But it is intended to be directly interpreted by the browser, in which case it is 20-30% faster.

Re:No (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about three weeks ago | (#47420733)

Sorry ... it is very unlikely that with our days super good JavaScript jit compilers you find something that is even faster.

Re:No (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47420857)

Sorry ... it is very unlikely that with our days super good JavaScript jit compilers you find something that is even faster.

Dart is close enough to JavaScript that much of the same JIT code can be used, and the people that designed Dart include some of the same people that work on JIT. One of the design motivations for Dart was removing some of the barriers to better JIT optimization. Dart is already faster than JavaScript, on a broad range of benchmarks, so it is silly to argue that it can't happen.

Re:No (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about three weeks ago | (#47420967)

As long as it is only compiled to JavaScript and there is no wide adopted Dart VM in "real Browsers" it is not silly.
my browsers certainly don't run Dart natively, so I can only use Dart code that was compiled to JavaScript, hence it is as fast or slower than JavaScript (and yes, I'm aware of the Dart project ... only arguing about the over simplifications some people do here).

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420897)

> Sorry ... it is very unlikely that with our days super good JavaScript jit compilers you find something that is even faster.

Perl5 is about 3x faster where it counts, so is C. [raid6.com.au]

Re:No (2)

znrt (2424692) | about three weeks ago | (#47420267)

this also means it is more reliable since more problems can be detected by static analysis tools

actually, it means you can employ unreliable programmers and think you can get away with it because your reports are green all over. odds are you won't.

static analysis tells if code is wrong. it will never tell if code is right. it's just a tool to assist in early improvement and by no means a substitute for reviews and testing. review and testing do add reliability. static analysis doesn't. it's just convenient, but you could do perfectly without, provided you test and review.

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420417)

it's just a tool to assist in early improvement

Don't underestimate this. Composing anything of quality takes many iterations. If you can reduce the time or effort it takes to iterate, you will have better output.

Re:No (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47420667)

review and testing do add reliability. static analysis doesn't.

If you have 100 hours available for testing, you can use static analysis to find 90% of the bugs and spend the rest of your time on the 10% that require deeper insight. Or you can waste 90% of your time being a human compiler, manually cross-checking symbols. Which is going to result in more reliable software?

Re:No (2)

Hewligan (202585) | about three weeks ago | (#47420845)

If you have 100 hours available for testing, you can use static analysis to find 90% of the bugs and spend the rest of your time on the 10% that require deeper insight. Or you can waste 90% of your time being a human compiler, manually cross-checking symbols. Which is going to result in more reliable software?

That assumes that:

  • 1) Static analysis will find enough problems to save 90% of your testing time
  • 2) There is no additional cost in development time in manually handling all type conversions

And there are a lot of reasons to believe that neither of those are true.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420539)

If that's all we/they wanted then Google just had to focus on Ecmascript 6, AKA Harmony, AKA the next version of Javascript. It's not like Dart improves much on top of that, aside from cleaning up some syntax at the cost of having to implement a whole new VM or running less efficiently on top of JS.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420633)

I prefer to debug a production piece of code in the same language I wrote it in originally.

Re:No (2)

jb_nizet (98713) | about three weeks ago | (#47419923)

If you can convert C to assembler, I don't get the point of C. If you can convert assembler to machine code, I don't get the point of assembler. The point of Dart is to provide a better, more productive, safer way to develop code. And frankly, I have not written any line of Dart, but JavaScript is so badly designed that it really needs a replacement.

Re:No (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about three weeks ago | (#47420007)

I think you're going to be a bit disappointed. Dart isn't a brand new language, its more like "better javascript". You might as well go Microsoft, and use their Typescript.

In both cases its like more lipstick, same pig.

Re:No (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about three weeks ago | (#47420811)

If you can convert C to assembler, I don't get the point of C. If you can convert assembler to machine code, I don't get the point of assembler.

I presume you're speaking tongue-in-cheek. Modern C compilers do a lot more than "convert" C to assembler, they heavily optimise the resulting code. The first compiler I ever ran into that produced code so tightly optimized that it did a better job over an application's life than hand-coded assembler was IBM's Pascal/VS in 1986, but more recent compilers such as gcc blow the doors off even that. So the point is that if you want code that's well-optimized at the instruction level - and stays well-optimized at the instruction level, and you don't want to spend forever and huge amounts of money, use a compiler.

Likewise, assemblers, despite being mostly literal translations of human-readable code are considerably faster for most people to code for, which is why assemblers have been the preference since the 1950's. The point being again, that there is time and money to be saved.

I concur on JavaScript, though. It has all the earmarks of a successful software product. Meaning it's horrible and has aspects that cannot be credited to designers who were sane or sober.

Re:No (1)

narcc (412956) | about three weeks ago | (#47420831)

Why do you think JavaScript is "badly designed"?

I'll accept "I was just repeating the meme" as an answer.

Re:No (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about three weeks ago | (#47420223)

If Dart performance is better than Javascript on supported browsers then some will adopt it (surpassing JS performance should be pretty easy in my opinion, Google Maps suffers badly from JS lag and I would not expect that from Google).

If a converter allows other browsers to be supported, then hell yes!

Adoption will probably be mostly for new projects, I'm not sure how it would work with an existing JS heavy code base (I guess not well).

I openly admit that I'm not a web UI developer. JS is one of the reasons. And it's not about learning syntax, it's about the things JS will allow, it is a different beast at its core from my experience. For the record, I'm a C# developer most of the time.

Re:No (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about three weeks ago | (#47420261)

"if you can compile C to machine code, i don't get the point of C."

understand now?

Re:No (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about three weeks ago | (#47420385)

No, I think a bad car analogy would be more helpful.

"If you can bore out the cylinders and hand fit bigger pistons and crank on the 1.4 Liter model to get a 1.6 Liter engine, why buy the 1.6L model"

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419669)

Why bother with that? Why not work on asm.js, and make that viable? Then all browsers could run ANY language we want to throw at the browser, and vendors wouldn't be pressured to implement an entire second VM (not like JS is going away anytime soon, so it's a waste of resources).

But no, much easier to ask everyone to adopt another unnecessary JS language and hope they can displace it somehow. And heck, it's not exactly all that much better than ES6, which they could have more or less implemented by now if they weren't wasting time reinventing the wheel.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419913)

So, Dart is a JavaScript obfuscator? Now I understand.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420655)

Almost.

Unfortunately, the source to source compiler is buggy, and you can get different behavior for Dart and the compiled Javascript :(.

We had to bail from it and use coffeescript instead.

atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 years (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about three weeks ago | (#47419341)

atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 years to get a piece of paper that says you know it.

Re:atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 yea (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47419453)

atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 years to get a piece of paper that says you know it.

If you already know JavaScript, and either Java or C++, then you can learn Dart in about 20 minutes.

Re:atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 yea (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about three weeks ago | (#47419615)

Not according to HR.

Re:atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 yea (1)

znrt (2424692) | about three weeks ago | (#47419977)

If you already know JavaScript, and either Java or C++, then you can learn Dart *and write absolute crap* in about 20 minutes.

please, folks. do get some real insight into the languages you use before doing serious stuff others will have to maintain. thank you.

this is true in general, but regarding to javascript:
if you come from Java, you *must* unlearn almost everything to start doing anything half decent in javascript.
If you come from c++ not so much, but please, please ... read the manual first. javascript is *not* what you think it is.

the problem with javascript isn't javascript, it's that 90% of people writing javascript hasn't a clue about javascript.

as for dart, i don't know / don't care atm.

Re:atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 yea (1)

Shados (741919) | about three weeks ago | (#47420273)

I agree with you on unlearning java before doing an anything meaningful in javascript...

However, there's only one thing worse than C#/Java dev trying to apply what they know to Javascript, and its a C++ dev trying to do the same. I've had to deal with a few, and its completely deplorable. Overengineering and premature optimization (that actually slow things down in one place), underengineering and total lack of optimization where its easy and count.... try to do classes the same way without trying to understand the various inheritance patterns javascript can use... trying to reinvent the wheel everywhere...

Its just painful.

Re:atfer it does you will go to school for 2-4 yea (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47420543)

Absolutely right, too many developers blame the tools rather than becoming better developers, we see this every couple of years: "Every language is crap, we should all move to Language X!". Then a few years later Language Y will come along to save us from the abhorrent abortion that is Language X.

By all means work on developing a new language if you feel it genuinely will be advantageous but unless that's your fulltime commitment in your capacity of coding then you should be focusing on becoming a more proficient developer with the tools you have because no language will save you from yourself. Ultimately in terms of speed, stability and maintainability it will be much more about your design choices than the design choices of the language, if you're not proficient in development with that language then you're likely to be making bad design choices so you're going to be the major problem.

Bertridge law of headlines (4, Interesting)

balaband (1286038) | about three weeks ago | (#47419345)

No

I call Betteridge on this one. (1, Insightful)

konaya (2617279) | about three weeks ago | (#47419361)

I. e., no. [wikipedia.org]

Headline in form of question = No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419423)

Headline in form of question = No

It would need to be submitted to a standards body (1, Insightful)

nickmalthus (972450) | about three weeks ago | (#47419439)

Dart would need to be submitted to an independent standards body and be royalty and patent free in order for any other company to even contemplate embracing it. I don't see Microsoft, Apple, or IBM handing the wheel to google to be sole dictator of the future of a critical component of web technology . Dart may be a good idea but without community support like what has happened with the HTML 5 standards group it will continue to be a proprietary browser specific language like VBScript in Internet Explorer.

Re:It would need to be submitted to a standards bo (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about three weeks ago | (#47419797)

Except VBScript wasn't designed from the ground up to be compiled to Javascript.

Re:It would need to be submitted to a standards bo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419903)

Dart would need to be submitted to an independent standards body and be royalty and patent free

standard: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/12/14/2047248/googles-dart-becomes-ecmas-dart
royalties: http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC52.htm
license: http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

STFU already

Re:It would need to be submitted to a standards bo (2)

jb_nizet (98713) | about three weeks ago | (#47419955)

Dart is already being made an ECMA standard, just like JavaScript: http://www.ecma-international.... [ecma-international.org]

Dart is an ECMA standard (3, Insightful)

MochaMan (30021) | about three weeks ago | (#47421031)

Dart was submitted for ECMA standardization early this year and is now ECMA-408 [techcrunch.com] .
[Disclaimer: I work on the Dart team]

Re:Dart is an ECMA standard (3, Insightful)

MochaMan (30021) | about three weeks ago | (#47421049)

Also, to address the license/patent issues, Dart is provided under a BSD-like license [google.com] and includes a patent grant [google.com] .

This comment is best viewed in MSIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419451)

To read this comment you will need a browser from the largest advertising company in world, please surrender your data here [google.com] and revisit this page

Re:This comment is best viewed in MSIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419571)

I would also like to run an ActiveX control from unknown publisher.

Not that much better than javascript (5, Insightful)

ewibble (1655195) | about three weeks ago | (#47419481)

I really wanted to use dart, I liked the fact it had types, but once I tried using it found out types where optional, and there was no way to make them required. So knowing programmers/people in general are lazy it will degenerate into no types at all. I don't mind having untyped variables as long as you are explicit about it, but dart is the other way round.

I think the web needs a statically typed language since webs apps are growing in size, having types allows for greater readability and ease of refactoring that untyped languages just don't provide. Dart is just not it.

option explicit... (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about three weeks ago | (#47420029)

VB6 and all versions of the Office scripting language (VB6..., I'd much rather use C#) had this option. In the early 1990s.

I hugely prefer static typing.

And don't get me started on function redefinition in Javascript. It's more than a debugging nightmare, it is a debugging apocalypse.

Re:option explicit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420781)

VB6, VBA (your Office variety) and VB.NET are all like this to where you have to turn "Option Explicit On" to require explicit variable declaration. There's also the "Option Strict On" option in VB.NET to enable strict type conversion. At least with Visual Studio, you can set the default project-wide for VB.NET. That said, give me C# any day.

what nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420101)

ease of refactoring that untyped languages just don't provide.

???

My subroutines, written in untyped languages, can be repurposed to work with different datatypes without any "refactoring" or editing at all.

Not that much better than javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420445)

This is what turned me off on Dart as well. Carte blanche optional typing is about as useful as no types at all. Either add static typing that is enforced or don't add types at all.

Also turned off by the arbitrary divergence from JS. Why?

Open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419549)

He's talking about Dart, which Wikipedia says is 'an open-source Web programming language developed by Google.'

It's a bit questionable to call a programming language "open source". Ok, it probably means that the Google-provided tools and interpreters are open source, but still. A language is just its specification.

Last time I checked (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419555)

You needed a special IDE to write a Dart app, and it would only run in a modified version of Chromium unless you compiled it to Javascript...so I don't see any reason why it would replace Javascript. If you want your tool to catch on, you have to come out on the winning side of "useable vs technically superior".

Re:Last time I checked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419751)

Just because that IDE is slow as crap because it is based on Eclipse, and constantly crashes because it is based on Eclipse, is no reason to avoid the language. I know people get tired of waiting hours on Eclipse, but it's a very productive environment after it eventually loads. I've been doing Dart development for over a year, and I probably only waste 40% of my time waiting on the IDE. The other 60% of the time it makes me more effective. It's worth having Eclipse waste nearly half of my time to make me more productive in the remaining time. Besides, IntelliJ says one day they may make a Dart IDE so there is hope for us Eclipse victims.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420291)

You needed a special IDE

That is a lie from Microsoft's talking points. Dart has always included command line tools so you can develop the standard way rather than having to run a Fisher-Price GUI on your dev system. You can even run Dart directly from Dartium (version of Chrome that runs Dart without converting it to JS) without using the IDE. The only thing the IDE is good for, like all uses of Eclipse, is wasting hours a day waiting on the IDE. I'm very productive with Dart and vi. Since I'm doing server-side development, most days I never have to start a GUI when doing Dart development must less ever using the IDE like you claim. It is absolutely not required, and I know several Dart devs that have never used it.

Things like this rarely work out (1)

raftpeople (844215) | about three weeks ago | (#47419597)

There is too much momentum for what is being used today, it's almost impossible to dislodge a de facto standard.

Re:Things like this rarely work out (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about three weeks ago | (#47419843)

it is, so there needs to be a compelling reason to get rid of javascript in favour of something else. A new language that is a bit like javascript anyway, and gets translated to javascript for most browsers anyway is really not it.

Now, if they could get native performance standardised and included in the major browsers I think people would be interested.
If they had a way to compile new controls into native binaries that could be dropped in a html form, maybe we'd be interested (I know,. ActiveX, but imagine it could be done right).

Dart... is nothing particularly exciting at all. Its a waste of effort. Standardise NaCl and get it out there for all, and maybe you'll have something. Dart, na.

Re:Things like this rarely work out (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420051)

They should really get together with Mozilla and mix NaCl and asm.js into one useful thing, perhaps a good solid bytecode spec LLVM can target. asm.js is doing things the right way by giving browser vendors a way to ease their existing VMs into something more performant. Google is just being needlessly demanding, and it will doom NaCl.

Re:Things like this rarely work out (1)

narcc (412956) | about three weeks ago | (#47420887)

perhaps a good solid bytecode spec

We did that before. It didn't work out.

No it won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419645)

Next question?

Depends on Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47419665)

Like it or not, Microsoft is still the elephant in the room, the thousand-pound gorilla, etc. If Microsoft accepts it, it is done and dusted. If not, abandon all hope.

Lately, Microsoft has shown signs of thinking about the possibility of considering the idea of maybe sorta kinda playing a bit nicer with others, but they've still got a long ways to go.

Re:Depends on Microsoft (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about three weeks ago | (#47419917)

Microsoft has Typescript. Don't expect them to embrace Dart anytime soon.

if Google was a baby... (0)

Joe Johnson (3720117) | about three weeks ago | (#47419671)

I'd tickle it's belly eveytime I read something like this... And listen to it goo goo gaa gaa. Such silliness.

Question (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about three weeks ago | (#47419745)

Will Google's Dart Language Replace Javascript?

No.

Next question?

Sure hope so (2)

Memetic Rebroadcast (1439085) | about three weeks ago | (#47419963)

Given Javascript, I want any other language to become the lingua franca of the web.

Re:Sure hope so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420627)

Thankyou for mindlessly parroting the "javascript sucks" tagline.

Needs Java? (0)

matria (157464) | about three weeks ago | (#47420071)

I was going to give it a try, and downloaded the Dart + IDE bundle. Then found out it needs a Java runtime engine to run the IDE. So forget it.

Re:Needs Java? (1)

Shados (741919) | about three weeks ago | (#47420241)

You don't need the IDE though. Sure, its nicer if you do, but when doing javascript its not rare to use Sublime or some other similar ones, if you're not using the holy war editors.

Sublime has packages for Dart, so well...

Why would it have to!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420079)

Dart can be compiled to JavaScript. So why would it have to replace JavaScript. Google's fight is not with JavaScript but with Oracle and Java. What Google needs to do is create a SDK for Android-Dart and let us use that for mobile development. Dart is perfect for the android and will alleviate a lot of the problems with Java. This would also allow mobile developers to do some web development and vice versa. And maybe...just maybe then we can see more quality app development for android.

Does SWIG work with it yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420343)

Another language YAY!

Even SWIG can't keep up with the rate we're cranking out new languages - the data divide is just growing and growing and growing and....

God please... (2)

aeschinesthesocratic (1359449) | about three weeks ago | (#47420471)

Anything that can rescue me from Javascript.

Re:God please... (2, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | about three weeks ago | (#47420911)

A simple solution, which I'm sure you've overlooked, would be to try learning the language.

It's amazing how few people bother, even after using the language for years.

Stop right there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420609)

I got to know if google loves us.

app to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47420611)

Requiring an app to be downloaded for viewing a video on your site is such a fail. Not expected from Slashdot.

Why not abstract the problem further? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about three weeks ago | (#47420753)

Problem: browsers only run JS, which has it's virtues and warts.
Solution: have a plug-in scripting engine where you can use any language, and let the developers choose their set of virtues and warts.

There is no reason why we can't develop a plugin interface, and have other languages up and working in short order. Python would be great. Just include .py file instead of .js and have that in the interpreter. With a common shared DOM object, you can keep existing JS and transition to your language of choice.

Re:Why not abstract the problem further? (0)

narcc (412956) | about three weeks ago | (#47420917)

Python? Seriously?

I can't even begin to list the reasons why it's unsuitable.

Fire and motion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47421047)

Google is playing the same game that has been routine from Microsoft any time the past 30 years.

Google knows that millions of devs have got a lot of investment in Javascript. I don't know how many websites in the world use it, but I'm guessing, as a global percentage, the first digit would be a '9'. And a lot of work has already gone in to making it easier to use, in different ways and for different purposes: there's JQuery, ExtJS, Google's own AngularJS, and I don't know what else out there. JS, in a word, has inertia.

If Dart is ever going to replace that, it has to build a comparable amount of inertia of its own. Now, 3 years after launch, what has it got?

Pretty much zip. Why should I learn Dart, when JQuery does everything I need it to just fine? Particularly while Dart is platform-specific, so for debugging purposes - at least for the foreseeable future - I'm still going to have to know Javascript anyway,

At this point, the name of the game is "fire and motion". Dart is a distraction. If you want to spend your time learning it and converting your apps to it - great, because that's time you're not spending building apps or platforms that might in any way worry Google.

Fuck languages, Standarize a VM ! (1)

goruka (1721094) | about three weeks ago | (#47421121)

How difficult it can it be to agree on this? This way anyone can use any language they wish. It's a win-win situation for Firefox and Google and probably for Microsoft because their underperforming new platforms will get loads of new applications. I seriously don't get corporations sometimes..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>