3 ms·

This is exactly as open as Android. The language is developed entirely in secret, and code is dumped into a repository on the day of a big announcement. Google'

by ootachi 15y ago

This is exactly as open as Android. The language is developed entirely in secret, and code is dumped into a repository on the day of a big announcement. Google's preferred partners (in this case, Chrome) get to see the source before the public does. Quibbling about whether this qualifies as "open" or not is arguing semantics, but I think recent history has shown that the Android model doesn't lead to the openness that its proponents had suggested it would.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I agree completely. The developing stuff in secret and play fast and loose with the definition of open source works fine with their own platform. The Web is everyone's platform. I find it a tad insulting to be blocked off of the process and then be told that the Elite Engineers of Google have solved this problem for us. There doesn't have to be an exact parallel between this and ActiveX for this to be bad. Mozilla announced about a month ago that they would be developing a not-yet-cross-platform set of APIs called WebAPI. Except they invited any one to participate. I'm subscribed to their mailing list and actively participating. I can submit patches if I so choose. Dash sounds like an almost-finished product that the rest of the community has to either adopt or opt-out of.
rafaelferreira 15y ago
This point might be valid in general, but it can't apply to programming languages. There is no way to do language design in a committee (one might have a shot at enhancing an existing language, but it's difficult).
- ootachi 15y ago
  There's a difference between (a) doing some language design work in private and (b) doing an entire language spec, as well as all the implementation, in secret, then one day shipping it to users and telling everyone else "here's how it is, now standardize this". I'd also argue that languages on the Web should be held to a different standard than general-purpose languages, since there are five primary players and the Web as a whole will be worse off if some of the browsers refuse to implement what other browsers are pushing.

by ootachi 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

I agree completely. The developing stuff in secret and play fast and loose with the definition of open source works fine with their own platform. The Web is everyone's platform. I find it a tad insulting to be blocked off of the process and then be told that the Elite Engineers of Google have solved this problem for us. There doesn't have to be an exact parallel between this and ActiveX for this to be bad. Mozilla announced about a month ago that they would be developing a not-yet-cross-platform set of APIs called WebAPI. Except they invited any one to participate. I'm subscribed to their mailing list and actively participating. I can submit patches if I so choose. Dash sounds like an almost-finished product that the rest of the community has to either adopt or opt-out of.

rafaelferreira 15y ago

This point might be valid in general, but it can't apply to programming languages. There is no way to do language design in a committee (one might have a shot at enhancing an existing language, but it's difficult).

ootachi 15y ago
There's a difference between (a) doing some language design work in private and (b) doing an entire language spec, as well as all the implementation, in secret, then one day shipping it to users and telling everyone else "here's how it is, now standardize this". I'd also argue that languages on the Web should be held to a different standard than general-purpose languages, since there are five primary players and the Web as a whole will be worse off if some of the browsers refuse to implement what other browsers are pushing.