10 ms·

From what is known, it seems as if Google plans to move all their Javascript app building efforts to Dart. Given that GWT/Closure are already pretty successful

by equark 15y ago

From what is known, it seems as if Google plans to move all their Javascript app building efforts to Dart. Given that GWT/Closure are already pretty successful in large organizations and internally, that seems like a big bet on Dart's future. Whether the Dart VM gets adopted by other browsers seems relatively inconsequential provided they have a decent cross-compilation story. Assume Dart is objectively better except for lacking browser support. Even Brendan Eich seems to admit that Dart will be "better". Then developing using Dart will give you an adult tooling story (through Chrome/Dash VM/Brightly), a server-side front-end language (capable of Google-scale applications), optimized compilation to Javascript (presumably better than GWT), and major corporate backing (in contrast to coffeescript). This seems to be like the makings for a major win provided that Google commits to adopting it internally.

wavephorm 15y ago
Google is clearly priming to do a Microsoft-style embrace-and-extend in a big way. Between Chrome, V8, NaCL, WebGL, Android, they have a wide range of technologies that they could begin steering away from standards.
- ender7 15y ago
  But...why? Google makes money selling ads. It doesn't make money selling you support contracts for software that you've been locked into. From what I can tell, Android exists so that Google isn't at the whim of Apple. The big G's greatest fear is that iPhones become the defacto smartphone, and Apple has the power to cut them out of their platform (by banning Google's ad networks and by setting the default search engine to Bing). I doubt the Android platform will ever really make money for Google.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    Google's strategy may be different than Microsoft, but the motivation is the same: to trap developers, and make them dependent on you, and to differentiate their technology from their peers.
  - petercooper 15y ago
    Don't forget SPDY. If you use Chrome, you're probably using SPDY when accessing services like GMail and Google Search. What does this get you? A snappier experience. This could dissuade you from using other services even in just the 'feel'.
  - enneff 15y ago
    When making these analyses people tend to forget that Google is a company of thousands of engineers. If we can devote a bit of engineering time to building better environments, the benefits across the entire company are multiplicative. Would you expect anything less from an engineering-driven company?
  - bzbarsky 15y ago
    Google wants to lock you into their advertising channels (gmail, google docs, google search). As long as your mail app is a source of revenue for someone (whether from support contracts or ads), they benefit from you being locked in, at least locally. Globally they may suffer because of the loss of goodwill, of course.
- equark 15y ago
  Except that they have a monopoly position in none of those domains. Microsoft used their power to protect their monopoly. The Dart document itself says the number one reason for Dart is to protect Google's massive bet on the web platform. It's easy to see how Microsoft or Apple could seriously undermine Google by keeping the web platform second rate, which is certainly within their power given current browser marketshares.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Not all of Dart/Dash can compile to JS.
- equark 15y ago
  Given that it is also a server side language this is not surprising or worrying. It's no different than node.js specific code that doesn't work in the client. I think it's just inherent to heterogenous environments. If they can do better than gwt I think they'll be fine.
BrendanEich 15y ago
"Even Brendan Eich admitted...". As if I would not expect, nay demand, that Gilad and Lars would do better -- much better -- than JS! For the record, I'm not worried about JS being replaced by a better language. I am working to do that within Ecma TC39, by evolving JS aggressively. The leaked Google doc's assertion that this is impossible and that a "clean break" is required to make significant improvements is nonsense, a thin rationale for going it alone rather than cooperating fully. The big issue I have with Dart, which you seem to consider inconsequential, is whether Google forks the web developer community, not just its own paid developers, with Dart, and thereby fragments web content. A Dart to JS compiler will never be "decent" compared to having the Dart VM in the browser. Yet I guarantee you that Apple and Microsoft (and Opera and Mozilla, but the first two are enough) will never embed the Dart VM. So "Works best in Chrome" and even "Works only in Chrome" are new norms promulgated intentionally by Google. We see more of this fragmentation every day. As a user of Chrome and Firefox (and Safari), I find it painful to experience, never mind the political bad taste. Ok, counter-arguments. What's wrong with playing hardball to advance the web, you say? As my blog tries to explain, the standards process requires good social relations and philosophical balance among the participating competitors. Google's approach with Dart is thus pretty much all wrong and doomed to leave Dart in excellent yet non-standardized and non-interoperable implementation status. Dart is GBScript to NaCl/Pepper's ActiveG. Could Google, unlike Microsoft ten or so years ago, prevail? Only by becoming the new monopoly power on the web. We know how that story ends.
- magicalist 15y ago
  > We see more of this fragmentation every day I'd be curious to see this backed up. Certainly with a long enough timeline we are not at a maximum of "works only in x", and -- ignoring those beleaguered Opera users still subjected to crappy UA sniffing -- I can't think of the last time I came across a site that blocked me for whatever my choice of browser (I'm a Chrome and Firefox user as well). If, on the other hand, you're talking about fancy new CSS3 or WebGL (or whatever) demos leaving out some browser due to neglecting to add a particular prefixed property (or whatever), I don't really see that as a problem. Prototype then standardize, right? Yes, not feature detecting and prefixing properly is poor web development practice and yes, they are cutting out part of their audience, but using an experimental feature inherently means that it may break at some point, and almost certainly isn't supported in all browsers. When 3d CSS transforms land in Firefox soon, there are going to be a whole lot of demos out there that won't work. I would say that's an education and library problem, not a fragmentation one.
karussell 15y ago
Just one image for reference :) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GBSGBbc9UtA/TmexwLaJN9I/AAAAAAAAAKs/06OaexCT5Ms/s1600/Lead%2Bdevice%2Bconcept.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GBSGBbc9UtA/TmexwLaJN9I/AAAAAAAAAK...
- chintan 15y ago
  Wow. Just wow! Goes to show how "Open" the corporations are. Don't blame them, but just wow!

by equark 15y ago

wavephorm 15y ago

Google is clearly priming to do a Microsoft-style embrace-and-extend in a big way. Between Chrome, V8, NaCL, WebGL, Android, they have a wide range of technologies that they could begin steering away from standards.

ender7 15y ago
But...why? Google makes money selling ads. It doesn't make money selling you support contracts for software that you've been locked into. From what I can tell, Android exists so that Google isn't at the whim of Apple. The big G's greatest fear is that iPhones become the defacto smartphone, and Apple has the power to cut them out of their platform (by banning Google's ad networks and by setting the default search engine to Bing). I doubt the Android platform will ever really make money for Google.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  Google's strategy may be different than Microsoft, but the motivation is the same: to trap developers, and make them dependent on you, and to differentiate their technology from their peers.
- petercooper 15y ago
  Don't forget SPDY. If you use Chrome, you're probably using SPDY when accessing services like GMail and Google Search. What does this get you? A snappier experience. This could dissuade you from using other services even in just the 'feel'.
- enneff 15y ago
  When making these analyses people tend to forget that Google is a company of thousands of engineers. If we can devote a bit of engineering time to building better environments, the benefits across the entire company are multiplicative. Would you expect anything less from an engineering-driven company?
- bzbarsky 15y ago
  Google wants to lock you into their advertising channels (gmail, google docs, google search). As long as your mail app is a source of revenue for someone (whether from support contracts or ads), they benefit from you being locked in, at least locally. Globally they may suffer because of the loss of goodwill, of course.
equark 15y ago
Except that they have a monopoly position in none of those domains. Microsoft used their power to protect their monopoly. The Dart document itself says the number one reason for Dart is to protect Google's massive bet on the web platform. It's easy to see how Microsoft or Apple could seriously undermine Google by keeping the web platform second rate, which is certainly within their power given current browser marketshares.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

Not all of Dart/Dash can compile to JS.

equark 15y ago
Given that it is also a server side language this is not surprising or worrying. It's no different than node.js specific code that doesn't work in the client. I think it's just inherent to heterogenous environments. If they can do better than gwt I think they'll be fine.

BrendanEich 15y ago

"Even Brendan Eich admitted...". As if I would not expect, nay demand, that Gilad and Lars would do better -- much better -- than JS! For the record, I'm not worried about JS being replaced by a better language. I am working to do that within Ecma TC39, by evolving JS aggressively. The leaked Google doc's assertion that this is impossible and that a "clean break" is required to make significant improvements is nonsense, a thin rationale for going it alone rather than cooperating fully. The big issue I have with Dart, which you seem to consider inconsequential, is whether Google forks the web developer community, not just its own paid developers, with Dart, and thereby fragments web content. A Dart to JS compiler will never be "decent" compared to having the Dart VM in the browser. Yet I guarantee you that Apple and Microsoft (and Opera and Mozilla, but the first two are enough) will never embed the Dart VM. So "Works best in Chrome" and even "Works only in Chrome" are new norms promulgated intentionally by Google. We see more of this fragmentation every day. As a user of Chrome and Firefox (and Safari), I find it painful to experience, never mind the political bad taste. Ok, counter-arguments. What's wrong with playing hardball to advance the web, you say? As my blog tries to explain, the standards process requires good social relations and philosophical balance among the participating competitors. Google's approach with Dart is thus pretty much all wrong and doomed to leave Dart in excellent yet non-standardized and non-interoperable implementation status. Dart is GBScript to NaCl/Pepper's ActiveG. Could Google, unlike Microsoft ten or so years ago, prevail? Only by becoming the new monopoly power on the web. We know how that story ends.

magicalist 15y ago
> We see more of this fragmentation every day I'd be curious to see this backed up. Certainly with a long enough timeline we are not at a maximum of "works only in x", and -- ignoring those beleaguered Opera users still subjected to crappy UA sniffing -- I can't think of the last time I came across a site that blocked me for whatever my choice of browser (I'm a Chrome and Firefox user as well). If, on the other hand, you're talking about fancy new CSS3 or WebGL (or whatever) demos leaving out some browser due to neglecting to add a particular prefixed property (or whatever), I don't really see that as a problem. Prototype then standardize, right? Yes, not feature detecting and prefixing properly is poor web development practice and yes, they are cutting out part of their audience, but using an experimental feature inherently means that it may break at some point, and almost certainly isn't supported in all browsers. When 3d CSS transforms land in Firefox soon, there are going to be a whole lot of demos out there that won't work. I would say that's an education and library problem, not a fragmentation one.

karussell 15y ago

Just one image for reference :) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GBSGBbc9UtA/TmexwLaJN9I/AAAAAAAAAKs/06OaexCT5Ms/s1600/Lead%2Bdevice%2Bconcept.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GBSGBbc9UtA/TmexwLaJN9I/AAAAAAAAAK...

chintan 15y ago
Wow. Just wow! Goes to show how "Open" the corporations are. Don't blame them, but just wow!