3 ms·

Dart is nothing like ActiveX. But apparently it is "cool" to invoke ActiveX for any browser technology you don't like. ActiveX was a way of loading untrusted b

Dart is nothing like ActiveX. But apparently it is "cool" to invoke ActiveX for any browser technology you don't like. ActiveX was a way of loading untrusted binaries in-process with the browser and running them unsandboxed. Does Dart run untrusted machine code unsandboxed? No. If Dart is Google's ActiveX, then JavaScript is Netscape's ActiveX, Java is Sun's ActiveX and Emscripten is Mozilla's ActiveX. (Note: none of these is actually true) Comparisons to Silverlight or Flash would also be inaccurate, since neither can compile to JavaScript and both are closed-source technologies that are not on any path to being standardized.

stusmall 13y ago
Honestly, ActiveX/JApplet comparison seems pretty fair to me. I know you said Java, but still.
- haberman 13y ago
  Java Applets run sandboxed. ActiveX did not. It's the difference between running an exe attached to an email and visiting a web page that runs JavaScript. Do these sound the same to you? For more info see: http://sip.cs.princeton.edu/java-vs-activex.html http://sip.cs.princeton.edu/java-vs-activex.html
  - stusmall 13y ago
    Sure there is a sandbox... but its a bit leaky
msoad 13y ago
It's safe to defend Dart to the point that your Gmail will run faster in Chrome that has Dart VM. Then Firefox and IE might fall behind in performing for Google web apps and then you will see how Dart will hurt web ecosystem. I'm just guessing. So far Dart2JS is pretty close to native Dart.
- haberman 13y ago
  To me this is like saying: "it's safe to defend Servo up to the point that it's faster single-threaded browser engines. Then Chrome and IE might fall behind in performing for web apps and then you will see how Servo will hurt the web ecosystem." To be honest, I hope that Servo out-performs the current browser engines, and the that other browsers feel pressure to follow suit, because it will push the web forward as a whole. It's like SpiderMonkey and V8 did with JS performance five years ago. Now you will probably say "but Dart is a new content type," and I see where you are coming from. But to me it's no different than asm.js. asm.js a new content type also, it just happens to be very clever and outputs programs which are a Polyglot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(computing)) of the new asm.js content type and regular JS. It is very cool how they have done this, but it doesn't change the fact that asm.js, when processed by an asm.js-aware compiler, is a different content type than regular JS and is processed in a different way that is intended to be faster than plain JS. So to me, a putting Dart source file right next to Dart2JS output on the open web is no different than asm.js, and I think both are equally valid approaches to moving the web forward.
  - Touche 13y ago
    No one has a problem with Dart2JS. We welcome more language choice on the web. People have a problem with Dartium because it's an attempt by one company to bully the rest of the web into adopting their own proprietary technology.
    - haberman 13y ago
      It's no different than putting an asm.js processor into a JS engine. asm.js is equally "proprietary" (actually more so, it's not on any standards track), and if it's truly faster than plain JS, then it's equally "bullying." (Note: I actually like asm.js a lot and don't think that healthy competition is "bullying").
      - Touche 13y ago
        Are you being serious? asm.js is basically a "best practices" guide for js vm authors. It's not required to run asm.js code, or even guaranteed to be faster; other js engines have optimized for asm.js code without treating "use asm" special. Dartium requires the end developer distribute 2 payloads, one for Dartium browsers and 1 for JavaScript browsers.
Touche 13y ago
Dart is Google's JavaScript. JavaScript was developed exclusively by Netscape and forced upon the web because of their dominance. Everyone agrees in hindsight that it was bad to do it that way. And now today Google is attempting the same thing.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Everyone agrees in hindsight that it was bad to do it that way. I, for one, don't. Better Javascript, with all its warts, than the W3C taking 10 years to create some standard language that was a comitee monstrocity (as they used to do a lot, until HTML5).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Dart is Google's JavaScript. JavaScript was developed exclusively by Netscape and forced upon the web because of their dominance. Everyone agrees in hindsight that it was bad to do it that way. This is true only for very limited values of "everyone".

stusmall 13y ago

Honestly, ActiveX/JApplet comparison seems pretty fair to me. I know you said Java, but still.

haberman 13y ago
Java Applets run sandboxed. ActiveX did not. It's the difference between running an exe attached to an email and visiting a web page that runs JavaScript. Do these sound the same to you? For more info see: http://sip.cs.princeton.edu/java-vs-activex.html http://sip.cs.princeton.edu/java-vs-activex.html
- stusmall 13y ago
  Sure there is a sandbox... but its a bit leaky

msoad 13y ago

It's safe to defend Dart to the point that your Gmail will run faster in Chrome that has Dart VM. Then Firefox and IE might fall behind in performing for Google web apps and then you will see how Dart will hurt web ecosystem. I'm just guessing. So far Dart2JS is pretty close to native Dart.

haberman 13y ago
To me this is like saying: "it's safe to defend Servo up to the point that it's faster single-threaded browser engines. Then Chrome and IE might fall behind in performing for web apps and then you will see how Servo will hurt the web ecosystem." To be honest, I hope that Servo out-performs the current browser engines, and the that other browsers feel pressure to follow suit, because it will push the web forward as a whole. It's like SpiderMonkey and V8 did with JS performance five years ago. Now you will probably say "but Dart is a new content type," and I see where you are coming from. But to me it's no different than asm.js. asm.js a new content type also, it just happens to be very clever and outputs programs which are a Polyglot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(computing)) of the new asm.js content type and regular JS. It is very cool how they have done this, but it doesn't change the fact that asm.js, when processed by an asm.js-aware compiler, is a different content type than regular JS and is processed in a different way that is intended to be faster than plain JS. So to me, a putting Dart source file right next to Dart2JS output on the open web is no different than asm.js, and I think both are equally valid approaches to moving the web forward.
- Touche 13y ago
  No one has a problem with Dart2JS. We welcome more language choice on the web. People have a problem with Dartium because it's an attempt by one company to bully the rest of the web into adopting their own proprietary technology.
  - haberman 13y ago
    It's no different than putting an asm.js processor into a JS engine. asm.js is equally "proprietary" (actually more so, it's not on any standards track), and if it's truly faster than plain JS, then it's equally "bullying." (Note: I actually like asm.js a lot and don't think that healthy competition is "bullying").
    - Touche 13y ago
      Are you being serious? asm.js is basically a "best practices" guide for js vm authors. It's not required to run asm.js code, or even guaranteed to be faster; other js engines have optimized for asm.js code without treating "use asm" special. Dartium requires the end developer distribute 2 payloads, one for Dartium browsers and 1 for JavaScript browsers.

Touche 13y ago

Dart is Google's JavaScript. JavaScript was developed exclusively by Netscape and forced upon the web because of their dominance. Everyone agrees in hindsight that it was bad to do it that way. And now today Google is attempting the same thing.

coldtea 13y ago
>Everyone agrees in hindsight that it was bad to do it that way. I, for one, don't. Better Javascript, with all its warts, than the W3C taking 10 years to create some standard language that was a comitee monstrocity (as they used to do a lot, until HTML5).
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Dart is Google's JavaScript. JavaScript was developed exclusively by Netscape and forced upon the web because of their dominance. Everyone agrees in hindsight that it was bad to do it that way. This is true only for very limited values of "everyone".