Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Dec 2013 07:53 UTC, submitted by Hiev
General Development

Google believes Dart speeds up both developers and the programs they write, but skeptics worry that it fragments Web programming and undermines the industry's focus on better JavaScript. So far, it's been a largely academic debate, but that will change in coming months.

That's because Google right now is building Dart technology directly into Chrome.

Does anyone here use Dart?

Thread beginning with comment 579177
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Dart
by moltonel on Fri 20th Dec 2013 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Dart"
moltonel
Member since:
2006-02-24

So if it can compile to Javascript it can't do anything which Javascript can't? If my assumption is correct, what's the point of it, might as well just carry on writing in Javascript!


The idea is that dart code is easyer to write (there are other, more popular tools for this, for example cofeescript) and that the language is easyer to optimize for the compiler (speeding up execution).

Dart is actually *less* functional than javascript. But they only threw away parts of JS that nobody should use, and are just early mistakes that hamper JS to this day.

That said, until dart gets traction from other browsers, I won't even try. Mozilla's asm.js is less ambitious in a way, but I think it is a better way forward.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Dart
by vivainio on Fri 20th Dec 2013 12:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Dart"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

CoffeeScript makes JS less fugly, and TypeScript makes it more scalable for larger teams and bigger projects (through static typing). Both compile to idiomatic JS.

I don't see a good "niche" for Dart, since both of these interact perfectly with existing JS ecosystem and provide the same "better language" benefits as Dart.

I'd rather see a JS-with-perf-extensions in the VM (e.g. structs and type annotations, integers, ...), that TypeScript, CoffeeScript & friends would compile to.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Dart
by moltonel on Fri 20th Dec 2013 14:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Dart"
moltonel Member since:
2006-02-24

I'd rather see a JS-with-perf-extensions in the VM (e.g. structs and type annotations, integers, ...), that TypeScript, CoffeeScript & friends would compile to.


That's pretty much what asm.js is. It's hard to call it an "extension" because it removes stuff from the language instead of adding to it, but it has the distinct advantage of being proper javascript that can run unmodified even on a browser that only knows about plain javascript (not sure what the performance profile is in this case).

As for type annotations and similar, since you can generate asm.js code from llvm bytecode, you have a large choice of languages to write your code in.

Reply Parent Score: 3