> Stop making up stuff. I never said GC is in the language specification; instead was responding _specifically_ to your own statement about C# being supported w

> Stop making up stuff. I never said GC is in the language specification; instead was responding _specifically_ to your own statement about C# being supported well by the Mono runtime. Sorry you've got it backwards, you're the one who introduced the .NET Framework vs Mono and their differing GC implementations as a valid comparisons for Dart (which they're not): > C# is an ECMA standard too; how well did Mono fare in the early days and even now after more than ten years? I've just corrected you in both cases that the Mono compiler has excellent support for the (C#) language specification which it does, valid C# both compiles with the Mono C# compiler and runs on the Mono VM fine. The language specification was what made this possible. The issues that you cite in the early days have no basis for comparison with Dart, which are instead side-effects from re-implementing a closed implementation like ActiveX (another incorrect comparison) should anyone else had chosen to re-implement it. The fact is the Dart platform couldn't be any more open than it is already: it's completely open source, has a language specification, has multiple compliant open source implementations (Dart VM + Dart2JS), has open patent grants, develops in the open, accepts external contributions, features are prioritized and driven by user feedback, encourages re-use and adoption. The Mono team were instead forced to create the VM and compiler from scratch and had to re-implement and reverse-engineer .NET's vast class libraries and API's (which don't have specs), precisely because they're not able to re-use the existing implementation. The Mono team are actually very happy whenever Microsoft releases some of their .NET libraries as Open source which they've been able to re-use as-is. Thus none of the issues you've brought up applies to Dart which is entirely Open Source that both supports and encourages embedding and re-use. Instead of Mono and ActiveX, the JVM and open source OpenJDK implementation or examples of embedding V8 like node would've been better comparisons. > Our positions are very clear here, and we disagree. That's fine. Whilst I disagree with your invalid comparisons, I'm ok with the rest of your comments in which you're only stating your opinions and beliefs. In contrast, I believe innovations like Dart are going to help move the web forward and enable richer experiences and already improves the development of large web apps .