2 ms·
I hate to say it, because Brendan Eich is no blogspammer, but I feel like he name-dropped Google Dart (Dash) as well-intentioned linkbait. It's mentioned in one
by adgar 15y ago
I hate to say it, because Brendan Eich is no blogspammer, but I feel like he name-dropped Google Dart (Dash) as well-intentioned linkbait. It's mentioned in one sentence and offers no new details or interesting discussion.
I agree with georgemcbay that he has reason to be disturbed by Dart's appearance and the backing of Google/Chrome, but with no actual details, he's just taking a quick shot at it while he can here.
- BrendanEich 15y agoI took no shot at Dart because we all know nearly nothing about it. My whole talk was about how competing browser vendors work together to standardize and evolve JS. In that light, bailing to a proprietary move like Dart is entirely relevant and not linkbait. This is a non-technical, or really meta-technical point. Lots of JS and web standards work is about techniques for solving technical problems, hence meta. Any well-funded company with smart people on staff can "do better" for a given point-function or language in the set of languages. On the web, such better-is-better approaches won't get traction without being adopted by multiple competing browsers. The best way to get adoption is standardization. Forcing reverse-engineering, open-washing as if that helps competing vendors more than a little (assuming their hackers can even read the delayed-open source as a reference), fragmenting web content are all "less good" in my view. A browser with market power can try these tactics. They may backfire, or make a messy "now you have two problems" world.