7 ms·

Just waiting for "Works best on Chrome" Silverlight and ActiveX have already shown the usefulness of proprietary enhancements. No thanks.

by andyl 13y ago

snird 13y ago
Dart is as open as possible. this is nothing like silverlight or activex.
limsup 13y ago
It compiles to JavaScript. The VM and dart2js are MIT licensed. It's not the same situation.
- spankalee 13y ago
  And Dart is not a plugin, it gives you the whole DOM (though a _much_ improved API), unlike Silverlight, ActiveX, Flash, Java or any other plugin.
- threeseed 13y ago
  And who is responsible for keeping the DartVM/Dart2JS behaviour in sync ? Google being the ONLY committers don't exactly have a motivation to.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Dart2JS will be the key thing that drives Dart adoption. So, yeah, Google has a motivation to keep it up to date.
    - gress 13y ago
      Only until there is enough adoption for them to stop caring.
      - lttlrck 13y ago
        If there is that much adoption then the onus will be on Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft etc to step up and accept the will of web developers. Edit: and push for standardization.
        andyl 13y ago
        Then get left in the dust as Chrome takes advantage of undocumented features. We've seen that game before, played by microsoft. Other browser vendors know this: Dart is never gonna fly outside of Google's walled garden.
        gress 13y ago
        It may not have to if Google can get (or has already) enough Chrome penetration.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        If there's enough adoption, then I'd expect other browser developers either to build their own Dart runtimes, or -- since its free -- use or fork Google's. And, then, sure, Dart2JS stops being important to Google because its unimportant to how Dart code performs on the web. But its unimportant to Google because its unimportant to anyone, since it won't matter to users, either.
  - skybrian 13y ago
    Google web developers who want to deploy their apps need to use dart2js. Google web developers need to make sure their apps work in all modern browsers. If the Dart team wants to promote adoption even within Google (and they do) they need to support all modern browsers. Dartium and dart2js already aren't quite in sync; numeric types work differently for example. But they're close enough that for most apps, you can develop in Dartium and deploy on dart2js and the language differences don't really bother you. The language differences between Dart-in-JavaScript and Dart-in-Dartium are a lot less than the differences between browsers that web developers deal with all the time.
gkhnarik 13y ago
The code will be compiled to JS, I don't think it is gonna make difference which browser you use.
rdtsc 13y ago
> Just waiting for "Works best on Chrome" Can't wait. I am already using Chrome, if it works best I'll like it even more. > Silverlight and ActiveX have already shown the usefulness of proprietary enhancements. So how do I compile Silverlight to .js again? > No thanks. Yes please!
dgregd 13y ago
JavaScript was also build as proprietary enhancement :)
- pjspycha 13y ago
  People don't really remember what the Web looked like back in Netscape Navigator days. Back then IE replicated some quirks from Netscape so websites would look similar.
  - oblio 13y ago
    But does anyone want to return to those days?
10098 13y ago
Dart != ActiveX Oh, and by the way, ActiveX would be awesome if it didn't have all the security flaws and was more portable. Too bad it didn't work.
melling 13y ago
Well, Dart will eventually work best on Chrome because of the Dart VM. There's nothing stopping Mozilla from adding the VM to Firefox, of course. Getting an additional 2x-4x performance boost would be great.
- azakai 13y ago
  There are at least two problems with adding the Dart VM: 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors, so it should not be shipped in a standards-compliant browser. This is a matter of principle that most browsers agree on these days, see for example Google's Blink guidelines: http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features 2. Effort. Adding a new VM into a browser is a huge amount of effort. The VM can't just be added even if it is open source (which it is) - it's very hard to integrate such a thing properly into a browser, technically speaking. Also aside from technical effort, there is also effort to start a new standards process for a new language.
  - mhd 13y ago
    As an alternative, just working on/sponsoring/begging for an asm.js target might be enough to equalize performance.
    - azakai 13y ago
      Not sure asm.js would make sense for something like Dart, since it is mainly intended for things like C and C++ (Dart is a dynamic language, and needs different forms of optimization). However, I think it would be fun to explore that direction! I'd be happy to collaborate with Dart VM people on that.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        I think we can be fairly sure that targeting asm.js would degrade performance for a language like Dart.
chrismsnz 13y ago
What exactly is proprietary about it? Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products, and if they don't want to there is dart2js which is acceptable. This isn't even close to the situation presented by Silverlight, ActiveX and I feel like you're being duplicitous by comparing them.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products, and if they don't want to there is dart2js which is acceptable. That's a tremendous amount of effort and it is likely to reduce the performance of JavaScript. Cross-language GC, in particular, is really hard. See Filip Pizlo's message to webkit-dev on this subject (citing two recent papers), which is part of the reason that Dart support was shot down when Google proposed adding it to WebKit: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/018811.html https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/...
  - skybrian 13y ago
    As of today, dart2js is the only way to deploy Dart to users' browsers, Chrome included. It already performs well enough for most apps. The Dart VM is nice but its primary purpose right now is running the Dart compiler and in Dartium which is only used by developers. (You can use it for other things but the ecosystem isn't there yet.)
  - chrismsnz 13y ago
    Right, I can understand that. It's a lot of effort to put in up-front just to support Google's pet project of the day. This is a really good reason why dart2js exists and why so much effort has been expended in making it good. However, I think that if Dart proves to be a compelling platform for developers I don't think it's out of the question for browser vendors to put some serious thought into integrating the Dart VM natively alongside JS. After all, Google is going to be doing exactly that with Chrome/Chromium...
- epsylon 13y ago
  > Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products No they aren't. Integrating a Google-controlled VM into any software project (for example, Firefox) isn't trivial (you need lots of resources for it) nor is desirable (the technology is driven and controlled by Google).

Just waiting for "Works best on Chrome" Silverlight and ActiveX have already shown the usefulness of proprietary enhancements. No thanks.

by andyl 13y ago

Just waiting for "Works best on Chrome" Silverlight and ActiveX have already shown the usefulness of proprietary enhancements. No thanks.

snird 13y ago

Dart is as open as possible. this is nothing like silverlight or activex.

limsup 13y ago

It compiles to JavaScript. The VM and dart2js are MIT licensed. It's not the same situation.

spankalee 13y ago
And Dart is not a plugin, it gives you the whole DOM (though a _much_ improved API), unlike Silverlight, ActiveX, Flash, Java or any other plugin.
threeseed 13y ago
And who is responsible for keeping the DartVM/Dart2JS behaviour in sync ? Google being the ONLY committers don't exactly have a motivation to.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Dart2JS will be the key thing that drives Dart adoption. So, yeah, Google has a motivation to keep it up to date.
  - gress 13y ago
    Only until there is enough adoption for them to stop caring.
    - lttlrck 13y ago
      If there is that much adoption then the onus will be on Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft etc to step up and accept the will of web developers. Edit: and push for standardization.
      - andyl 13y ago
        Then get left in the dust as Chrome takes advantage of undocumented features. We've seen that game before, played by microsoft. Other browser vendors know this: Dart is never gonna fly outside of Google's walled garden.
        gress 13y ago
        It may not have to if Google can get (or has already) enough Chrome penetration.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      If there's enough adoption, then I'd expect other browser developers either to build their own Dart runtimes, or -- since its free -- use or fork Google's. And, then, sure, Dart2JS stops being important to Google because its unimportant to how Dart code performs on the web. But its unimportant to Google because its unimportant to anyone, since it won't matter to users, either.
- skybrian 13y ago
  Google web developers who want to deploy their apps need to use dart2js. Google web developers need to make sure their apps work in all modern browsers. If the Dart team wants to promote adoption even within Google (and they do) they need to support all modern browsers. Dartium and dart2js already aren't quite in sync; numeric types work differently for example. But they're close enough that for most apps, you can develop in Dartium and deploy on dart2js and the language differences don't really bother you. The language differences between Dart-in-JavaScript and Dart-in-Dartium are a lot less than the differences between browsers that web developers deal with all the time.

gkhnarik 13y ago

The code will be compiled to JS, I don't think it is gonna make difference which browser you use.

rdtsc 13y ago

> Just waiting for "Works best on Chrome" Can't wait. I am already using Chrome, if it works best I'll like it even more. > Silverlight and ActiveX have already shown the usefulness of proprietary enhancements. So how do I compile Silverlight to .js again? > No thanks. Yes please!

dgregd 13y ago

JavaScript was also build as proprietary enhancement :)

pjspycha 13y ago
People don't really remember what the Web looked like back in Netscape Navigator days. Back then IE replicated some quirks from Netscape so websites would look similar.
- oblio 13y ago
  But does anyone want to return to those days?

10098 13y ago

Dart != ActiveX Oh, and by the way, ActiveX would be awesome if it didn't have all the security flaws and was more portable. Too bad it didn't work.

melling 13y ago

Well, Dart will eventually work best on Chrome because of the Dart VM. There's nothing stopping Mozilla from adding the VM to Firefox, of course. Getting an additional 2x-4x performance boost would be great.

azakai 13y ago
There are at least two problems with adding the Dart VM: 1. Standards. The Dart VM is not part of any web standard, nor part of a spec that has interest from multiple vendors, so it should not be shipped in a standards-compliant browser. This is a matter of principle that most browsers agree on these days, see for example Google's Blink guidelines: http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features 2. Effort. Adding a new VM into a browser is a huge amount of effort. The VM can't just be added even if it is open source (which it is) - it's very hard to integrate such a thing properly into a browser, technically speaking. Also aside from technical effort, there is also effort to start a new standards process for a new language.
- mhd 13y ago
  As an alternative, just working on/sponsoring/begging for an asm.js target might be enough to equalize performance.
  - azakai 13y ago
    Not sure asm.js would make sense for something like Dart, since it is mainly intended for things like C and C++ (Dart is a dynamic language, and needs different forms of optimization). However, I think it would be fun to explore that direction! I'd be happy to collaborate with Dart VM people on that.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      I think we can be fairly sure that targeting asm.js would degrade performance for a language like Dart.

chrismsnz 13y ago

What exactly is proprietary about it? Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products, and if they don't want to there is dart2js which is acceptable. This isn't even close to the situation presented by Silverlight, ActiveX and I feel like you're being duplicitous by comparing them.

pcwalton 13y ago
> Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products, and if they don't want to there is dart2js which is acceptable. That's a tremendous amount of effort and it is likely to reduce the performance of JavaScript. Cross-language GC, in particular, is really hard. See Filip Pizlo's message to webkit-dev on this subject (citing two recent papers), which is part of the reason that Dart support was shot down when Google proposed adding it to WebKit: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/018811.html https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/...
- skybrian 13y ago
  As of today, dart2js is the only way to deploy Dart to users' browsers, Chrome included. It already performs well enough for most apps. The Dart VM is nice but its primary purpose right now is running the Dart compiler and in Dartium which is only used by developers. (You can use it for other things but the ecosystem isn't there yet.)
- chrismsnz 13y ago
  Right, I can understand that. It's a lot of effort to put in up-front just to support Google's pet project of the day. This is a really good reason why dart2js exists and why so much effort has been expended in making it good. However, I think that if Dart proves to be a compelling platform for developers I don't think it's out of the question for browser vendors to put some serious thought into integrating the Dart VM natively alongside JS. After all, Google is going to be doing exactly that with Chrome/Chromium...
epsylon 13y ago
> Browser vendors are free to integrate the VM into their products No they aren't. Integrating a Google-controlled VM into any software project (for example, Firefox) isn't trivial (you need lots of resources for it) nor is desirable (the technology is driven and controlled by Google).