6 ms·

I love Dart, I think it's a great language. I hope that Google will start supporting it natively in Chrome.

by fnbr 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago
They are. Check "In Development" section. http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6682831673622528 http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6682831673622528 So in a few months we will have Google's VbScript available in Chrome.
- skybrian 12y ago
  I don't think you can infer any particular schedule from that page. Dart's been in development for a long time.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  I don't get why people make this VbScript comparison (sneer, actually). Yes, it is a language introduced by a single company, but then again many languages have started that way, and in this particular case there are big differences between VbScript and Dart. I think Dart is a better language. Do you disagree?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Yes, it is a language introduced by a single company, but then again many languages have started that way Including JavaScript. Acceptance as a standard usually happens after someone implements it, makes it widely available, and proves its merit, not the other way around (and standards that happen the other way around tend to be dead on the vine.)
    - azakai 12y ago
      It's true that many current standards became accepted by force, after a powerful entity pushed them on the development world. However, that doesn't mean it's a good model. We do have a well-functioning standards process in the web space now - which we did not have back when JavaScript was introduced. The process isn't perfect of course, but nothing is. It seems quite insulting to that process for Google to go completely around it and ship major new features that have no interest from other parties, like PNaCl and Dart. With that said, I do agree with Google about its recent choice to go back to prefixed features, but only ship them to 50% of users; that avoids websites relying on them, but does allow testing "in the wild". I think that would be a far better model than Google has taken with PNaCl (shipping it to 100% of users). If Google took that approach with PNaCl and Dart (instead of what it has been doing with PNaCl), much of my objections would go away.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > We do have a well-functioning standards process in the web space now - which we did not have back when JavaScript was introduced. The "well-functioning" process, to the extent it exists,includes the same features -- things are introduced by a vendor and proposed for standardization, but generally do not become standardized until there is uptake in the wild of the implementation. And, to the extent processes exist that didn't when JavaScript emerged and are even arguably "well-functioning", they apply largely to modifications to existing core web technologies (particularly HTML and JS), and not to new alternative or supplemental technologies, where, to the extent that processes exist, they are largely similar to (or exactly the same) processes that were available when JavaScript emerged.
        azakai 12y ago
        > The "well-functioning" process, to the extent it exists,includes the same features -- things are introduced by a vendor and proposed for standardization, but generally do not become standardized until there is uptake in the wild of the implementation. True, but also one vendor does not ship the feature in a unilateral way, in opposition to all the others. > And, to the extent processes exist that didn't when JavaScript emerged and are even arguably "well-functioning", they apply largely to modifications to existing core web technologies (particularly HTML and JS), and not to new alternative or supplemental technologies, where, to the extent that processes exist, they are largely similar to (or exactly the same) processes that were available when JavaScript emerged. True to some extent (most standards work is incremental), but also entirely new web technologies have arisen through the standards process, such as WebGL and WebRTC. New web technologies can be added without unilateral and controversial action.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > but also entirely new web technologies have arisen through the standards process, such as WebGL and WebRTC. WebGL and WebRTC are JavaScript APIs, not alternatives to core web technologies.
        12y ago
- spankalee 12y ago
  The VBScript comparison dig is as old as it is wrong. VBScript was IE only, because VBScript didn't compile to JavaScript. Dart compiles to JavaScript and runs on IE, Safari, Chrome, Firefox and Opera. VBScript didn't have a specification accepted by any standards organizations, Dart is ratified as ECMA 408. VBScript is not open source, Dart is. The fact that Dart has been used in production years before any VM in a browser should show how different they are.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    > Dart compiles to JavaScript Not all language features can be represented in JavaScript. Besides, all the languages that compile to JavaScript just add complexity layers to the already complex model of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. And I bet there is a VbScript to JavaScript somewhere out there. > Dart is ratified as ECMA 408. VBScript is not open source, Dart is. Standards by themselves don't foster adoption. Eiffel, Ada, Modula-2, Extended Pascal, Common Lisp, Smalltalk, ... have ISO/ANSI standards. In the 60 - 90's being open source wasn't a requirement for multiple implementations for programming languages.
    - syntern 12y ago
      Context: I'm using Dart for app development for two years now. > Not all language features can be represented in JavaScript. I could not name one (except the dart:io stuff, which is not supported in the JS world). Could you please elaborate? > Besides, all the languages that compile to JavaScript just add complexity layers to the already complex model of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. I've found the same, but Dart is a surprising exception. If you are not using any fancy framework (e.g. Angular.Dart), you will be just fine with the close-to-the-browser approach of the language and APIs.
      - azakai 12y ago
        The main example is that Dart's basic numeric types can't be represented in JavaScript. Dart VM integers are bignums, while dart2js numbers are IEEE754 doubles.
sehr 12y ago
What's the status on other browsers implementing it? Is it even a possibility?
- andreasvc 12y ago
  It doesn't look good. It's very well possible, but the other parties just do not seem interested. Maybe because they are currently investing in Javascript related technologies.
  - fnbr 12y ago
    That's the real issue, IMO. It doesn't matter if Chrome has Dart as long as 2/3rd the market is using different browsers.
    - munificent 12y ago
      It's important to distinguish adopting a Dart VM from supporting Dart the language. Dart works fine in all modern browsers now by being compiled to JS. Doing that gives you the developer-time productivity boost of using Dart (which to me is the most compelling aspect of the language) while letting you ship your app to the entire web. The VM is neat too, but from the user's perspective, it's an implementation detail. It's a really nice development tool, because it lets you run and debug your Dart code straight from source instead of trying to deal with generated code. But I think it's relatively less important that the VM be shipped to end users. I think Dart can be a great, successful product without that happening.
    - beavis2 12y ago
      It's not an issue. I've noticed dart2js performance is as good as hand-written js. At least with dart2js I have just one "VM" to target - Google have sorted the x-browser issues for me. Imagine the peculiarities you'd find in Microsoft's implementation, for example.

I love Dart, I think it's a great language. I hope that Google will start supporting it natively in Chrome.

by fnbr 12y ago

I love Dart, I think it's a great language. I hope that Google will start supporting it natively in Chrome.

pjmlp 12y ago

They are. Check "In Development" section. http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6682831673622528 http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6682831673622528 So in a few months we will have Google's VbScript available in Chrome.

skybrian 12y ago
I don't think you can infer any particular schedule from that page. Dart's been in development for a long time.
andreasvc 12y ago
I don't get why people make this VbScript comparison (sneer, actually). Yes, it is a language introduced by a single company, but then again many languages have started that way, and in this particular case there are big differences between VbScript and Dart. I think Dart is a better language. Do you disagree?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Yes, it is a language introduced by a single company, but then again many languages have started that way Including JavaScript. Acceptance as a standard usually happens after someone implements it, makes it widely available, and proves its merit, not the other way around (and standards that happen the other way around tend to be dead on the vine.)
  - azakai 12y ago
    It's true that many current standards became accepted by force, after a powerful entity pushed them on the development world. However, that doesn't mean it's a good model. We do have a well-functioning standards process in the web space now - which we did not have back when JavaScript was introduced. The process isn't perfect of course, but nothing is. It seems quite insulting to that process for Google to go completely around it and ship major new features that have no interest from other parties, like PNaCl and Dart. With that said, I do agree with Google about its recent choice to go back to prefixed features, but only ship them to 50% of users; that avoids websites relying on them, but does allow testing "in the wild". I think that would be a far better model than Google has taken with PNaCl (shipping it to 100% of users). If Google took that approach with PNaCl and Dart (instead of what it has been doing with PNaCl), much of my objections would go away.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > We do have a well-functioning standards process in the web space now - which we did not have back when JavaScript was introduced. The "well-functioning" process, to the extent it exists,includes the same features -- things are introduced by a vendor and proposed for standardization, but generally do not become standardized until there is uptake in the wild of the implementation. And, to the extent processes exist that didn't when JavaScript emerged and are even arguably "well-functioning", they apply largely to modifications to existing core web technologies (particularly HTML and JS), and not to new alternative or supplemental technologies, where, to the extent that processes exist, they are largely similar to (or exactly the same) processes that were available when JavaScript emerged.
      - azakai 12y ago
        > The "well-functioning" process, to the extent it exists,includes the same features -- things are introduced by a vendor and proposed for standardization, but generally do not become standardized until there is uptake in the wild of the implementation. True, but also one vendor does not ship the feature in a unilateral way, in opposition to all the others. > And, to the extent processes exist that didn't when JavaScript emerged and are even arguably "well-functioning", they apply largely to modifications to existing core web technologies (particularly HTML and JS), and not to new alternative or supplemental technologies, where, to the extent that processes exist, they are largely similar to (or exactly the same) processes that were available when JavaScript emerged. True to some extent (most standards work is incremental), but also entirely new web technologies have arisen through the standards process, such as WebGL and WebRTC. New web technologies can be added without unilateral and controversial action.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > but also entirely new web technologies have arisen through the standards process, such as WebGL and WebRTC. WebGL and WebRTC are JavaScript APIs, not alternatives to core web technologies.
        12y ago
spankalee 12y ago
The VBScript comparison dig is as old as it is wrong. VBScript was IE only, because VBScript didn't compile to JavaScript. Dart compiles to JavaScript and runs on IE, Safari, Chrome, Firefox and Opera. VBScript didn't have a specification accepted by any standards organizations, Dart is ratified as ECMA 408. VBScript is not open source, Dart is. The fact that Dart has been used in production years before any VM in a browser should show how different they are.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > Dart compiles to JavaScript Not all language features can be represented in JavaScript. Besides, all the languages that compile to JavaScript just add complexity layers to the already complex model of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. And I bet there is a VbScript to JavaScript somewhere out there. > Dart is ratified as ECMA 408. VBScript is not open source, Dart is. Standards by themselves don't foster adoption. Eiffel, Ada, Modula-2, Extended Pascal, Common Lisp, Smalltalk, ... have ISO/ANSI standards. In the 60 - 90's being open source wasn't a requirement for multiple implementations for programming languages.
  - syntern 12y ago
    Context: I'm using Dart for app development for two years now. > Not all language features can be represented in JavaScript. I could not name one (except the dart:io stuff, which is not supported in the JS world). Could you please elaborate? > Besides, all the languages that compile to JavaScript just add complexity layers to the already complex model of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. I've found the same, but Dart is a surprising exception. If you are not using any fancy framework (e.g. Angular.Dart), you will be just fine with the close-to-the-browser approach of the language and APIs.
    - azakai 12y ago
      The main example is that Dart's basic numeric types can't be represented in JavaScript. Dart VM integers are bignums, while dart2js numbers are IEEE754 doubles.

sehr 12y ago

What's the status on other browsers implementing it? Is it even a possibility?

andreasvc 12y ago
It doesn't look good. It's very well possible, but the other parties just do not seem interested. Maybe because they are currently investing in Javascript related technologies.
- fnbr 12y ago
  That's the real issue, IMO. It doesn't matter if Chrome has Dart as long as 2/3rd the market is using different browsers.
  - munificent 12y ago
    It's important to distinguish adopting a Dart VM from supporting Dart the language. Dart works fine in all modern browsers now by being compiled to JS. Doing that gives you the developer-time productivity boost of using Dart (which to me is the most compelling aspect of the language) while letting you ship your app to the entire web. The VM is neat too, but from the user's perspective, it's an implementation detail. It's a really nice development tool, because it lets you run and debug your Dart code straight from source instead of trying to deal with generated code. But I think it's relatively less important that the VM be shipped to end users. I think Dart can be a great, successful product without that happening.
  - beavis2 12y ago
    It's not an issue. I've noticed dart2js performance is as good as hand-written js. At least with dart2js I have just one "VM" to target - Google have sorted the x-browser issues for me. Imagine the peculiarities you'd find in Microsoft's implementation, for example.