Google Releases Dart 1.1 161
rjmarvin writes "Google released version 1.1 of its Dart open-source web programming language today, with new features and improved tools. The Dart Editor is updated with improved debugging, code implementation and more descriptive toolkits, and new UDP (User Datagram Protocol) and documentation support command-line and server-side Dart applications. Google also highlighted benchmarks such as the Richards benchmark, where Dart 1.1 is running 25% faster than JavaScript, as part of the larger competition between Dart and JavaScript in creating more complex applications in the web development space."
25%?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
My thoughts exactly -- 25% is near nothing. I'd guess that you could achieve the same or more just with built-in native support for common programming patterns, either by detecting those in the JIT compiler or, where necessary, by providing new built-in JS functions for the script writers to use.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the advantage of not Dart being a much nicer and consistent language o use than JavaScript, to the point that it would probably be worth it even if it were a bit slower.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do they advertise the performance then and not the clean-ness and features of the language?
Re: (Score:2)
I think because there would be a natural assumption that using dart would actually be slower...they're saying that isn't the case, and in fact it is a bit faster.
Re: (Score:2)
someone else mentions :
> And it appears to be a misquote of TFA too: "Dart’s Javascript output continues to shine. Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript."
So, it didn't even mean what is said...it is just 'comparable' after all.
Re: (Score:2)
25% is near nothing, hey? Then I suppose you wouldn't mind donating 25% of your net monthly income to charity? Help make the world a better place.
Re:25%?? (Score:5, Insightful)
So how long till Google drops this project too? I'm all for new approaches to code that runs in the browser, but I'm a bit hesitant to invest in any technology stack from a company with such a history of dropping projects.
Is there any sort of non-google dev community supporting Dart itself? Or is it completely dependent on Google at this point?
Re:25%?? (Score:5, Informative)
Dart is really just the evolution of Google's GWT efforts, which they've been pretty good about supporting long-term and cultivating community contributions while also making a lengthy migration path to Dart
Re:25%?? (Score:5, Informative)
Dart team member here. The Dart project, like Chromium, is being run as a fully open source project [google.com] accepting patches from Googlers and non-Googlers alike. We've also begun the ECMA Standardization [chromium.org] process, meaning that like JavaScript we'll have a open standard that anyone can implement to. In terms of Dart users, here's a list [dartlang.org] of some. Hope that answers your questions!
Re: (Score:3)
It really doesn't answer the question of what happens when Google proper loses interest and pulls funding. Does it survive on its own, or vanish?
If its was a more established language, with decades behind it, there would far less risk in choosing it. But that is always the chicken/egg problem with stuff like this.
Re: (Score:3)
It really doesn't answer the question of what happens when Google proper loses interest and pulls funding.
Google's purpose in creating Dart was so that Google could use it to build its own apps. So if Dart is better than Javascript for that purpose (it is), and if Dart can get enough penetration into the browser market that Google can actually use it for its own services (debatable), then Google will continue supporting it.
So, rather than asking what Google is going to do, you're better off asking what Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla are going to do.
Re: (Score:1)
None of them seem to have expressed any interest in including support for Dart in their browsers. Or rather, they have expressed negative interest in supporting Dart.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one of them have expressed interest in each of the language the other is proposing? Let me give you a list:
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't answer the question of what happens when Google proper loses interest and pulls funding. Does it survive on its own, or vanish?
There's really no possible satisfying answer to that question without knowing the reasons for the hypothetical future loss of interest/support on Google's part. One could ask similar questions about any language with equally unsatisfying answers.
The project is open source and headed for ECMA standardization - both of those are both very positive from the point of view of future continuity. The best anyone can answer is that if such a situation ever should come to pass, the project is in the best possible po
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my actual question was whether the non-google contributors had reached critical mass, such that the project could practically be sustained without Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Question for you- why compile to Javascript rather than a new interpreter directly in Chrome? The last thing I want to do is write in one language, compile it to another, then need to debug across language boundaries. Its a maintenance nightmare and a complete non-starter for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Javascript is the only ubiquitous cross browser application engine?
Of course they want to go further than that (and afaik Chrome can execute it natively?) but getting Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple to accept that maybe Google, their arch enemy, kind of has a point and hence implementing a Google born technology, is an impossible task.
It took long enough to get Microsoft to accept HTML5 and that was with Apple, Mozilla, and Google all working together with it.
It's a chicken and egg scenario, Google ne
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yes, if you listen to a source that's entire business model revolves around being paid by companies like Microsoft to give favourable results, that has openly admitted it's results are skewed, and that does not provide the underlying data for their calculations.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Chrome is still the most popular browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Statcounter is imperfect, but better because it at least eliminates bias even if it's not a completely statistically accurate measure. It also helps that although far from identical, it at least tallies a lot more closely with smaller scale independent studies like the one W3Schools.
We don't have a perfect measure, but just because no measure is perfect doesn't mean there aren't grossly different levels of quality, and it's meaningless to refer to a completely unverifiable study like NetApp's that's produce
Re: (Score:2)
Question for you- why compile to Javascript rather than a new interpreter directly in Chrome?
To allow for the widest possible cross-browser app compatibility today. Dart currently support all modern browsers (back to IE9) - forcing users to use Chrome would divide the web, which is the last thing we want to do. That said, we're working on getting the VM into Chrome, but really that comes down to an added performance boost. We expect most developers will target JS to ensure cross-browser compatibility. It's entirely possible (encouraged, even) to deploy both.
The last thing I want to do is write in one language, compile it to another, then need to debug across language boundaries.
The good news is that you can write and d
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for providing some information.
In terms of Dart users, here's a list [dartlang.org] of some. Hope that answers your questions!
I'm not sure this is making much of a case for uptake, though. I took a quick look through that list, and the only non-Google company I really recognize on there is Adobe.
Re:25%?? (Score:5, Informative)
And it appears to be a misquote of TFA too: "Dart’s Javascript output continues to shine. Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript."
Re: (Score:3)
That is correct. They are saying Dart is 25% faster than earlier Dart. Now almost as good as JavaScript. They are NOT saying it is 25% faster than JavaScript.
Re: (Score:3)
Although in some benchmarks the Dart VM is 25% faster than JavaScript (and much more in other benchmarks). The article quotes are a mess. Just look at the actual benchmark numbers at https://www.dartlang.org/performance/ [dartlang.org] for a good idea of what's actually being claimed.
Re: (Score:1)
Because that site would be completely 100% objective, and certainly would never pick specific benchmarks that might indicate a specific language is better than others.
Actually, I'm surprised they claim it's only 25% on these hand-picked [one of which was specifically coded for it] benchmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand your sentiment where you may not trust these benchmarks to be unbiased. However, I am fairly certain if they are, it'd be pretty easy to prove. Do you have any sites that show to the contrary?
Furthermore, one of the major points of all the "new web languages" is to add (optional) typing, which is where the biggest speedups come from modern JS engines -- type inference and unboxing. So to strip them of these features is akin to saying "you're allowed to benchmark C against Python if you made
New test on who RTFA (Score:1)
Make it so that link in the article is broken. See who notices.
Broken Link (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it's gone the way of Google Reader already...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Should be:
http://sdt.bz/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=67599&page=1
aka
http://sdt.bz/67591
Re:Broken Link: HEY PEOPLE WHO RUN SLASHDOT (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, seriously. It could use a little editing too. The submitter apparently wrote that it is 25% faster than Javascript, when the article says that Dart 1.1 produces 25% faster Javascript than Dart 1.0.
Wait, you're the submitter. Why did you write that it's 25% faster than Javascript?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
either that or "yay Dart, I love Dart, let me hype it up as much as possible with some slightly vague claim that I can say was a mistake".
Pah. Let me know when they make NaCl more ubiquitous in browsers.
Re: (Score:1)
Get your shit together, the top link of a prominent story remains broken.
This is simply to get you ready for the event that after you get interested in Dart and maybe learn and build something with it, Google will EOL it and cancel the project.
Re: (Score:2)
post on the rust site: http://news.dartlang.org/2014/01/dart-11-features-up-to-25-faster.html [dartlang.org]
Re: (Score:2)
...and by rust of course i meant dart...
Re: (Score:2)
Nice freudian slip to ignite a Chrome vs Firefox flamewar. :)
Thought bubble: Suppose firefox-nextgen (implemented 99% in rust) includes
where rust-web is a subset of rust for which FF provides a rust console (repl). Code compiles directly to 'safe' native code without the need for an interpreter nor the overhead of garbage collection. As a Mozilla-proprietary open source language (i.e. like vbscript and Dart, no other browser adopts it), it could offer performance gains due to being a typed 'systems language
If MS wrote dart for IE instead (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone here would be screaming bloody murder and all MS is trying to sabotage the web again?! But if Google does it then it is cool and innovative.
I am tired of chrome not implementing W3C standards without using the -webkit to get it to work properly. I am not the only once concerned it is the next IE 6 [pcmag.com] but thankfully there are only a few sites which only work well in Chrome.
Mozilla Firefox is catching up and has the fasted DOM according to tomshardware and ASM.JS looks to be rather interesting. Unfortunately it is agaisn't Google's interest to support it as they want a closed ecosystem similar to IE 6 and activeX before it.
I still use Chrome as Firefox is still behind in a few areas, but even IE is catching up and I find both IE and Firefox to use less ram than Chrome.
Re: (Score:3)
Is Dart an open language spec? I've assumed it is, but may be incorrect. That's usually what detracts from Microsoft's attempts ... they try to lock you to Microsoft. If this is just as locked, it's just as useless. If it's open, can be forked, etc, if Google goes Microsoft-like, then it's a great idea.
Re:If MS wrote dart for IE instead (Score:5, Informative)
Is Dart an open language spec?
The language spec is CCA 3 and ECMA standards tracked. The source code is BSD.
Javascript was not an immaculate conception of Berners-Lee, Torvalds and Stallman. It was a product of Mozilla, blessed by nobody and foisted on the world via the defacto browser of the day. It is also more than flawed enough to justify some competition.
The <script> tag has a "language" attribute for a reason, the curmudgeons of Slashdot notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also more than flawed enough to justify some competition.
How so? Are you familiar with the language at all?
The tag has a "language" attribute for a reason
Not any more. It's been depreciated for a while now.
Re: (Score:1)
Deprecated in favor of the type= attribute, which does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also more than flawed enough to justify some competition.
How so? Are you familiar with the language at all?
I'm 90% sure that the reason Javascript was built as a prototype-based language [wikipedia.org] is because that was the easiest way to create the interpreter.
Javascript's scoping rules are horrible, though. Overall the language is fine, if you avoid certain parts, but it's not a great example of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 90% sure that the reason Javascript was built as a prototype-based language is because that was the easiest way to create the interpreter.
Possibly, but the reason doesn't seem relevant. Being accidentally well-designed isn't exactly a strong criticism!
Javascript's scoping rules are horrible, though.
Sorry, what's wrong with them? I've heard that before, but I've yet to hear an actual reason. I've looked, but can't even begin to understand this complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
BTW the quote isn't from Dijkstra and is fundamentally wrong (OOP originated in Norway).
Re: (Score:2)
BTW the quote isn't from Dijkstra
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Fanboy? No, I'm just not irrational. I find the "PHP is the bad because I dunno why, just is" crowd irritating. Hold any opinion you want, just make sure that it's the result of thought, not a substitute for it!
He doesn't even understand why Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing and that's really CS101 stuff.
Well, then please, enlighten me! What makes it bad? How is that reason any way related to CS, let alone something you'd encounter in a 101 course?
believes Javascript and PHP are the pinnacles of quality language design
When did I ever say that? On PHP, all I've said is that it's not the unusable abomination unthinking slashdotters believe it to be. It's a perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't even understand why Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing and that's really CS101 stuff.
Well, then please, enlighten me! What makes it bad? How is that reason any way related to CS, let alone something you'd encounter in a 101 course?
I don't know about CS 101, but by their third semester, I've seen a lot of students come to an understanding of why global variables cause problems. My guess is that you have mainly written small programs in your life, and that is why you've never understood it. In that case carry on, keep doing what works for you.
Doug Crockford talks a lot about the problems of Javascript in his book, "JavaScript: The Good Parts." He also briefly discusses scoping. If it's something you care about, you can go read it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a lot of students come to an understanding of why global variables cause problems.
Indeed they do. But that's not the issue here. The claim here is that "Javascript defaulting to global unless you explicitly declare local with var is a bad thing" which, additionally, is "CS 101 stuff". While I've been accused of "not understanding", I've never actually posted anything on the subject! I did ask the parent to enlighten me and support his ultimately unsupportable assertions.
He also briefly discusses scoping. If it's something you care about, you can go read it.
It was your criticism. You claimed that "Javascript's scoping rules are horrible". If you are unwilling to suppor
Re: (Score:2)
It was your criticism. You claimed that "Javascript's scoping rules are horrible"
To be honest, I have very little hope of having a reasonable conversation with you on the topic of programming languages.
Ask yourself when you last lost an argument. If the answer is a long, long time ago, you fit firmly in the retard category.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I have very little hope of having a reasonable conversation with you on the topic of programming languages.
I was thinking the same thing. So far, all I can get out of you is "it sucks!" or "you suck!". If you want a reasonable conversation, you need to participate in one!
I'll give it one last try: Why do you think that "Javascript's scoping rules are horrible"?
Re: (Score:2)
You like Javascript but not OOP?
It's not complicated. Just get past the pitifully superficial and I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle that one out.
So... no answer on the alleged problems with Javascript's scoping rules? (I'm not too surprised. It turns out that that particular myth evaporates the instant you look in to it. I guess that's why it's not as popular now as it used to be.)
Re: (Score:3)
How so? Are you familiar with the language at all?
Can't speak for him, but I do. Dart has for example a Future class which actually immediately tells you what is going on even when you have derived your own version of it, when Javascript has as many solutions to the concurrency problem as there are programmers. I often think of Javascript as a write-only language, while Dart code actually opens itself up rather well to studying.
I think that most importantly Dart seems to know what it is and what its purpose is. Javascript was excellent when the web was new
Re: (Score:2)
but since jQuery came around it appears more like a tool for inventing infinite ways to shoot yourself in the foot.
Ugh... Try not to judge javascript on the basis of that abomination.
Re: (Score:3)
From the spec: (https://www.dartlang.org/docs/spec/latest/dart-language-specification.html#h.jn6bj1irtqj1)
"Except as otherwise noted, the content of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the BSD License."
Re: (Score:2)
It's started the process [chromium.org] of ECMA standardization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What I would like to see is a virtual machine. Yeah it will add bloat and waste cpu etc.
But a VM will increase security and any language can run inside it. So once can use python for example or make up his or her own language and have that JIT compile if it is not cached and run etc. Kind of like people usuing Java to run python with jython but more vm than sandbox like.
I see Google's native client and NACL and this as just that. They are making Chrome into a ChromeOS virtual machine where it is all a Googl
Re: (Score:2)
What I would like to see is a virtual machine.
++
Re: (Score:2)
What, like Java?
Re: (Score:1)
I wish Google was less pushy with their tech. Mozilla's making them look worse and worse as the years go by. Google makes a bunch of iffy languages for the web while Mozilla makes one very promising systems language, and upstands Google by showing they could just incrementally improve Javascript at a faster rate. One of them wants the world to change to their model, the other is working to change the world from within.
I get the impression that Google just wants people to use their tech. With the advent of a
Er What? (Score:2)
"Unfortunately it is agaisn't Google's interest to support it..."
Are you talking about Firefox or W3C? Because I am pretty sure Google is Firefox's single largest contributor of funds.
Re: (Score:1)
For those that do, however...
Re: (Score:2)
Where are these "cool and innovative" posts you speak of?
Re: (Score:2)
If MS did it, it would be totally proprietary and *only* work on MSIE.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah just like Typescript which is open-source and distributed as a node package.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
better than javascript? (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that Dart will not be really useful until it has native browser support on all browsers. I have not used it, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious to know if anyone who has experience with it can explain the benefits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is also ASM.JS that Firefox is on the bandwagon with but of course it is against the interest of the 2 organizations to support the opposite as they want to dominate.
Even if MS supported one or both in future versions of IE both Chrome and Firefox still hold too much a grip before anyone could adopt. It is frustrating as I do not trust Dart as it is highly tied to the chrome native platform and may have patents and licensing issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:better than javascript? (Score:5, Interesting)
dart does have a compile to javascript option.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Dart compiles to javascript. Eventually native support would be nice, but since I can't see Microsoft being keen to implement anything by Google, Javascript generated from Dart source will remain dominant for some time. If, as the article says, that the generated Javascript is at near native Javascript speeds, I might be awfully tempted to give Dart a try. I know Javascript has its defenders, but man oh man I find it a difficult, even painful language to do anything useful in.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to know if anyone who has experience with it can explain the benefits.
I'm sorry I don't have much experience with it but the benefits should be obvious: it's not javascript.
*Not* 25% faster than javascript (Score:3)
I was wondering how it could be 25% faster than javascript when it compiled into javascript so I checked out TFA.
Performance on the Richards benchmark is 25% better than the first release, making runtime comparable to the original JavaScript.
So it has 25% faster javascript output. It is not 25% faster than javascript.
Re: (Score:3)
Dart has an actual VM of its own. Its probably what they're benchmarking. It can be cross compiled, but it doesn't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
See https://www.dartlang.org/performance/ [dartlang.org], in some cases they actually are claiming that the cross-compiled javascript performance outperforms the standardized implementation of an algorithm written originally in Javascript (e.g. the DeltaBlue and Tracer benchmarks)
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the links in the article you'll see a chart [dartlang.org] with "dart", "dart2js", and "js v8". The native Dart implementation is 25% faster than JS. The dart2js conversion is slightly slower.
we need language agnostic hooks (Score:2)
Why Dart? Why not a language agnostic runtime and then have Dart target that?
Then when some new (or old) language wants to run in the browser you don't have to update your browser for it.
I don't have to upgrade my CPU to run a new language.
I don't have to upgrade my OS to run a new language.
Why should I have to upgrade my browser?... its time that browsers have a nice interface that any code could hook into.
How about LLVM or something as a standard?
I think Google is already doing this with Native Client...
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of dart is probably to push chrome as the leading platform (which browsers are, nowadays). All you ask goes in the opposite direction.
The LLVM as standard would be a great idea. Java ideals done right.
Google misunderstands (Score:2)
http://javascript.crockford.com/javascript.html [crockford.com]
Why not just make JS cooler? (Score:2)
Make JS cooler, why start something new to fix an old problem?
Re: (Score:2)
JS is already improving very nicely. ECMA5 is a huge improvement, and it's getting more consistent with each version.
There's really no need to invent a whole new programming language for the browser. JS does its job just fine already, it just has some legacy issues which are being fixed over time.
There's no way Dart or whatever language will be "perfect" or even close to something like that, so going for this approach serves no purpose at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Plays well with JQuery? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
jQueryUI makes sure your client side programming does NOT work =P
Re: (Score:2)
Non-nullable types yet? (Score:2)
Ceylon as alternative to Dart (Score:1)
Slightly offtopic but Ceylon will run on top of the JavaScript runtime, so this an alternative to Dart.
Obligatory (Score:2)
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS [github.com]
Why Ceylon in particular?
Re: (Score:1)
Low-level technical skills have a half-life of only about three to five years. Meaning, half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not re
Re: (Score:1)
Low-level technical skills have a half-life of only about three to five years. Meaning, half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
I think that's the first time I've heard "low-level technical skills" and "engineering" said in the same breath.
Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
What modest humility.</sarc>
Re: (Score:1)
I look forward to completing my MBA and becoming your manager.
How do you feel about working weekends?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up! Quoting it for the AC-blocking crowd:
half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
There is nothing new under the sun. There never has been. What you call obsolescence is just marketing. Hook line and sinker.
Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
No, experienced professionals know that what marketing says doesn't mean anything. Experienced professionals make a life-long commitment, they aren't in it just for the "career" and to jump to the latest trend because marketing tells them to. They do things outside of work, for free, or for fun, not just because it helps their "career" and it is the latest fad.
By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
Experienced professionals can work in a team and make use of others skills *whatever their background*. Experienced professionals can see how so-called obsolete things are still the entire underpinnings of all the modern mechanisms.
It sounds more like, you can't be bothered to learn any of the basics, you don't respect people as people but just toys for you to use for your own gain, and you don't care about technology or computers or engineering, you are just in it for a check.
I would guess they stick you with the "new" stuff because you are too dangerous to be messing with the foundation, much safer to leave you putting up the drapes and wallpaper.
Re:Time to Get Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And they charge you $160 for the textbook, which are the same as the last edition except that the text is in a different color and there's a different set of irrelevant pictures of astronauts and so forth.
Wait... what was this thread about again?
Re: (Score:2)