3 ms·
Wondering why Dart was not considered. Large apps are written in it (Ad sense UI, Ad Words UI, Google CRM). Has good tooling (IntelliJ plugin, Webstorm). It's f
by tkubacki 9y ago
Wondering why Dart was not considered. Large apps are written in it (Ad sense UI, Ad Words UI, Google CRM). Has good tooling (IntelliJ plugin, Webstorm). It's fairly easy to pick up - Java/C# like syntax. It's harder to shot yourself on your own foot (it's not JS superset). It has strong mode. It has superb tooling and package manager ( dartanalyzer, pub)
- sim0n 9y agoDoes any major tech company use Dart other than Google?
- tkubacki 9y agoWell can't say if any of those are major - but here is a list https://www.dartlang.org/community/who-uses-dart https://www.dartlang.org/community/who-uses-dart
- JeremyBanks 9y agoDart is for Google, by Google, and external engagement has been as neglected as for all of Google's front end efforts. Google ceded the thought leader position in this area years ago and everybody knows better than to trust any of their new efforts.
- tkubacki 9y agoSo this is official reason why it was not considered ?
- vmarsy 9y agoI don't know, but the reddit blog post says: > One of the worries we had with Flow was that it was built to solve specific needs at Facebook and that its future would be determined by that scope. if you replace [Flow/Facebook] with [Dart/Google] , I guess you could make the same point.
- wereHamster 9y agoIf you look through the flow source code then you'll find many facebook-specific features. Search for 'Facebookism'! I don't know about Dart. But TypeScript is written primarily for the community, not for Microsoft.
- noway421 9y agoThere's still polymer which is developed by chrome team and angular2 by ads department and those seem to be quite industry proven. E.g. angular2 is one of the main adopter of typescript.
- JeremyBanks 9y agoDon't forget that Google's first instinct for Angular 2 was to create an incompatible fork of TypeScript. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtScript
- TomMarius 9y agoThat was because TypeScript didn't support decorators back then - the "at" comes from the at sign.
- JeremyBanks 9y agoYes, and what kind of reasoning is that? You do not fork a language to make your framework a little more convenient. It's inane. That's how you end up with both a dead language, and a dead framework. Microsoft saved them from themselves. (I expect they could have arranged to have the feature added without first publicly declaring their intention to fork the language, but that's above their community engagement skill level.) Google's Closure Compiler was the best version of compiled JavaScript for five years. It should have been the winner, but Google did nothing to make it palatable to the open-source community (docs are a disaster, the code is full of unexplained Google-specific workarounds, it integrates with nothing), got trampled, and now they're forced to adopt someone else's tech to remain relevant. Google is so bad at this.
- camus2 9y ago> Wondering why Dart was not considered. Because Dart is a different language. Typescript is (mostly) Javascript with type annotations, so there is nothing new to learn. In theory, you can just change the extension of a file from .js to .ts to convert it to Typescript.