3 ms·

'Once it's standardized' is a chicken and egg statement - since to be standardized can only happen if other parties get on board. If nobody does, Google can sa

'Once it's standardized' is a chicken and egg statement - since to be standardized can only happen if other parties get on board. If nobody does, Google can say 'well we tried', whether or not they made any serious attempt to involve others in the process (which thus far it would apper they have not). The fact that others could try to make their own competitors is an exact description of the situation where the web breaks down in favor of proprietary solutions and the strongest companies end up owning the web.

mythz 13y ago
You can submit a language specification as a standard without outside buy in. It becomes an open specification that anyone is free to implement. You seem to interpret every open initiative Google tries to do with Dart as a bad thing. What else can they do? How much more open can they make the implementation to appease critics? What haven't they done yet to make it any more open? V8 was open sourced and its now powering node, running server side procs in PostgreSQL databases, creating rich cross-platform Desktop apps with node-webkit - what has Google done to stop it's pervasive use? Before V8, JS performance was orders of magnitudes slower than it is today, with little focus on performance - and now there's an arms race. The web doesn't have to worry about the strongest companies making too good compelling open-source solutions that people fear will end up owning it, we're in 2013 and web development is still fragmented, inconsistent and progressing at a glacial pace. The biggest threat is coming from proprietary native apps in walled garden mobile platforms being developed behind close doors without a standards body in sight and no desire for any open or interoperable initiatives. Without any attempts at any new initiatives trying to make web development better, in the next 5 years we'd still be building buggy web apps on a broken language running at similar to todays performance - but hey, at least we waited for the standard bodies to create all possible solutions. All other attempts that stray from the script be damned.
- embolism 13y ago
  The web ending up being controlled by Google isn't 'saving' it from proprietary platforms at all. If standards bodies are as feeble as you suggest aren't going to be a serious custodian for Dart anyway. Ossified standards bodies or unilateral action are not the only options. Google could have engaged in cooperation with other interested parties throughout the development, so that it was a truly collaborative effort. Whilst I agree there are technical problems that Dart is solving, they have chosen an approach designed to maximize their control over the web.
  - FeloniousHam 13y ago
    But how Google's "control" over Dart (meaning: "leading the development"), maximize their "control" over the Web (meaning: "currently providing the best suite of applications")? It's a language. If it takes off, it will be self-sustaining. Has IBM's "control" over Eclipse given IBM dominance over the Java ecosystem? I read a lot of criticism of Google's centralized incubation of Dart, that it has not been developed by some standards committee. How would this prevent the nightmare scenario of a Google overlord (it's a _language_, for Pete's sake)? What was the last successful committee designed language you've used? tl;dr Hate Google for all kinds of reasons, but judge the language on its merits.
    - embolism 13y ago
      Since when was eclipse the same as the java language? That analogy seems almost like a deliberate misdirection - do you really mean it? Your TLDR says it all - you tell us to look at Dart as if it were some disembodied platonic entity independent of the goals of the corporation that controls it. But Dart isn't independent of Google, so can you explain why we should limit our thinking like this?
      - FeloniousHam 13y ago
        Eclipse is a tool that was wholly developed by IBM before it was spun off as an independent foundation. Even then, IBM was the largest contributor to its development. Regardless of the fact that IBM was using Eclipse to advance its corporate interests (to provide a tool suite to replace Visual Age and support Websphere), the IDE is still useful. You see, it's possible to separate the product from its origin. A language has even less to do with advancing corporate interests (other than Google's professed goal to "make the web faster"), since it's an agnostic platform rather than a product designed to further a specific goal.

mythz 13y ago

You can submit a language specification as a standard without outside buy in. It becomes an open specification that anyone is free to implement. You seem to interpret every open initiative Google tries to do with Dart as a bad thing. What else can they do? How much more open can they make the implementation to appease critics? What haven't they done yet to make it any more open? V8 was open sourced and its now powering node, running server side procs in PostgreSQL databases, creating rich cross-platform Desktop apps with node-webkit - what has Google done to stop it's pervasive use? Before V8, JS performance was orders of magnitudes slower than it is today, with little focus on performance - and now there's an arms race. The web doesn't have to worry about the strongest companies making too good compelling open-source solutions that people fear will end up owning it, we're in 2013 and web development is still fragmented, inconsistent and progressing at a glacial pace. The biggest threat is coming from proprietary native apps in walled garden mobile platforms being developed behind close doors without a standards body in sight and no desire for any open or interoperable initiatives. Without any attempts at any new initiatives trying to make web development better, in the next 5 years we'd still be building buggy web apps on a broken language running at similar to todays performance - but hey, at least we waited for the standard bodies to create all possible solutions. All other attempts that stray from the script be damned.

embolism 13y ago
The web ending up being controlled by Google isn't 'saving' it from proprietary platforms at all. If standards bodies are as feeble as you suggest aren't going to be a serious custodian for Dart anyway. Ossified standards bodies or unilateral action are not the only options. Google could have engaged in cooperation with other interested parties throughout the development, so that it was a truly collaborative effort. Whilst I agree there are technical problems that Dart is solving, they have chosen an approach designed to maximize their control over the web.
- FeloniousHam 13y ago
  But how Google's "control" over Dart (meaning: "leading the development"), maximize their "control" over the Web (meaning: "currently providing the best suite of applications")? It's a language. If it takes off, it will be self-sustaining. Has IBM's "control" over Eclipse given IBM dominance over the Java ecosystem? I read a lot of criticism of Google's centralized incubation of Dart, that it has not been developed by some standards committee. How would this prevent the nightmare scenario of a Google overlord (it's a _language_, for Pete's sake)? What was the last successful committee designed language you've used? tl;dr Hate Google for all kinds of reasons, but judge the language on its merits.
  - embolism 13y ago
    Since when was eclipse the same as the java language? That analogy seems almost like a deliberate misdirection - do you really mean it? Your TLDR says it all - you tell us to look at Dart as if it were some disembodied platonic entity independent of the goals of the corporation that controls it. But Dart isn't independent of Google, so can you explain why we should limit our thinking like this?
    - FeloniousHam 13y ago
      Eclipse is a tool that was wholly developed by IBM before it was spun off as an independent foundation. Even then, IBM was the largest contributor to its development. Regardless of the fact that IBM was using Eclipse to advance its corporate interests (to provide a tool suite to replace Visual Age and support Websphere), the IDE is still useful. You see, it's possible to separate the product from its origin. A language has even less to do with advancing corporate interests (other than Google's professed goal to "make the web faster"), since it's an agnostic platform rather than a product designed to further a specific goal.