4 ms·

Well, until recently, the proposed transition was to a non-standard language controlled by one company. We'll see if the attempt to standardize Dart has a posit

by vor_ 13y ago

Well, until recently, the proposed transition was to a non-standard language controlled by one company. We'll see if the attempt to standardize Dart has a positive effect.

thesnider 13y ago
Like asm.js?
- pcwalton 13y ago
  asm.js is standardized, in that its semantics are fully defined by ECMA-262, which is a multi-vendor, widely implemented standard.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    I may be wrong, but I see Math.imul as part of the asm.js spec and I believe it's an extension on ECMA-252.5 (and related libraries, IIRC typed arrays are part of the webgl stuff, not ECMA-262)
    - pcwalton 13y ago
      Yeah, you're right. Both are part of the ES6 draft though: https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html
      - masklinn 13y ago
        Neat, I had no idea typed arrays were being moved into ES6.
masklinn 13y ago
> We'll see if the attempt to standardize Dart There are no attempts to standardise Dart, it's just the rubber-stamping of Dart by ECMA. Think C#.
- jasomill 13y ago
  Maybe so, but there's still great value in a normative, comprehensive, practically implementable written specification, whether you choose to call it a "standard" or not. Taking your example, imagine how painful it'd be to write a C# compiler from scratch with the language defined by one of the existing implementations. As just one example of the madness this would entail, see Eric Lippert's "magic zero" "definition" from one version of Microsoft's C# compiler in http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2006/03/29/the-root-of-all-evil-part-two.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2006/03/29/the-r... where the compile-time literal (8 * (0+(7-7))) implicitly converts to an enumeration type, but (8 * ((7-7)+0)) does not.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > there's still great value in a normative, comprehensive, practically implementable written specification True but completely irrelevant to vor_'s comment. For all intents and purposes, Dart is still a non-standard language controlled by one company, exactly as C#.
kibwen 13y ago
"Control" of any language is held by those with commit access to the dominant implementation of that language, regardless of the existence of any formal specification. In the absence of at least two healthy and competing implementations, an ECMA standard will do nothing to alleviate the concerns that people have voiced regarding Dart.
- spankalee 13y ago
  Well, there are two implementations already: dart2js and the Dart vm, but this is why TC52's work item #3 is so important: "To develop test suites that may be used to verify the correct implementation of these standards." This way other implementations have an accessible way of testing compliance. I'm not sure if we'll see another JIT'ing VM soon, but I personally hope there's a JVM implementation one day.

by vor_ 13y ago

Well, until recently, the proposed transition was to a non-standard language controlled by one company. We'll see if the attempt to standardize Dart has a positive effect.

thesnider 13y ago

Like asm.js?

pcwalton 13y ago
asm.js is standardized, in that its semantics are fully defined by ECMA-262, which is a multi-vendor, widely implemented standard.
- masklinn 13y ago
  I may be wrong, but I see Math.imul as part of the asm.js spec and I believe it's an extension on ECMA-252.5 (and related libraries, IIRC typed arrays are part of the webgl stuff, not ECMA-262)
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    Yeah, you're right. Both are part of the ES6 draft though: https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html
    - masklinn 13y ago
      Neat, I had no idea typed arrays were being moved into ES6.

masklinn 13y ago

> We'll see if the attempt to standardize Dart There are no attempts to standardise Dart, it's just the rubber-stamping of Dart by ECMA. Think C#.

jasomill 13y ago
Maybe so, but there's still great value in a normative, comprehensive, practically implementable written specification, whether you choose to call it a "standard" or not. Taking your example, imagine how painful it'd be to write a C# compiler from scratch with the language defined by one of the existing implementations. As just one example of the madness this would entail, see Eric Lippert's "magic zero" "definition" from one version of Microsoft's C# compiler in http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2006/03/29/the-root-of-all-evil-part-two.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2006/03/29/the-r... where the compile-time literal (8 * (0+(7-7))) implicitly converts to an enumeration type, but (8 * ((7-7)+0)) does not.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > there's still great value in a normative, comprehensive, practically implementable written specification True but completely irrelevant to vor_'s comment. For all intents and purposes, Dart is still a non-standard language controlled by one company, exactly as C#.

kibwen 13y ago

"Control" of any language is held by those with commit access to the dominant implementation of that language, regardless of the existence of any formal specification. In the absence of at least two healthy and competing implementations, an ECMA standard will do nothing to alleviate the concerns that people have voiced regarding Dart.

spankalee 13y ago
Well, there are two implementations already: dart2js and the Dart vm, but this is why TC52's work item #3 is so important: "To develop test suites that may be used to verify the correct implementation of these standards." This way other implementations have an accessible way of testing compliance. I'm not sure if we'll see another JIT'ing VM soon, but I personally hope there's a JVM implementation one day.