[Helianthus]

Oh, why not? I wouldn't mind watching a highlight reel and you seem so gleeful.

---

I think my reasoning throughout this page has been more or less articulated, but I suppose I might try for a compact representation.

What exactly do you think is going to happen with Dart?

Is Google going to add Dart to every Chrome install? Sure, maybe. Will so many developers cry out that Safari and IE will also be forced to implement Dart runtimes?

Is every single browser going to run Dart because Dart will have made such a compelling case that it and it alone is preferable to javascript?

Why not python? Why not C, Java, Scala? We could be running those languages in browsers just as easily as we might run Dart.

Do you think Dart is that amazing? Do you think Dart is just so wonderful that it'll unite the programming world as never before?

No.

Even Google's pet framework is divided and recoiling.

The problem isn't that Dart has to compete with javascript, it's that it has to compete with every other language out there, and it's just not that special. Why Dart? If we're going to be serious about ripping up browsers, why Dart?

Now, I maybe should make it more clear: I don't have any problem with Dart as an experiment, Dart as a transpiled language, or even Angular.dart.

But Google doesn't get to decide the future of the web just because it has a bunch of fancy language designers. Google is trying to shove Dart down our throats, and it's not working, and it's not going to work.

Dart will remain a transpiled-to-js language for a time, and then fall off the radar when it's clear that it doesn't transpile to js very well. The alternative is a fantasy.

[detst]

You claimed that Dart is a flawed language. Substantiate that claim. Basic stuff here. If you can't, I must assume you're a troll or have no clue yet somehow think you do.

> Do you think Dart is that amazing? Do you think Dart is just so wonderful that it'll unite the programming world as never before?

The world isn't black and white. Dart doesn't have to be perfect to be a viable alternative to JS.

> Even Google's pet framework is divided and recoiling.

No, they both thrive and benefit from the other. It is a feature. The same thing is happening with Polymer.

> Why Dart?

Take a cursory look and you'll find some arguments for Dart but I would think you would have covered this before having such a strong opinion.

> Google is trying to shove Dart down our throats

Said multiple times. Substantiate please.

> fall off the radar when it's clear that it doesn't transpile to js very well. The alternative is a fantasy.

So you know more about dart2js capabilities than the creators of V8 and Dart? This is the condescending and arrogant attitude I spoke of.

https://www.dartlang.org/performance/

[Helianthus]

>You claimed that Dart is a flawed language.

I was echoing OP (the one who was bemoaning snark and cynicism). Read his paragraphs. Flawed doesn't mean crippled. There are things about Dart I like.

A language can't be perfect.

>No, they both thrive and benefit from the other.

Pay attention to negative feedback. Some substantial portion of AngularJS devs are unhappy.

>Take a cursory look and you'll find some arguments for Dart

I'm not arguing for Dart's existence here, I'm saying Dart has absolutely no chance of securing the browser's runtime over javascript. Why Dart, why not Go?

>So you know more about dart2js capabilities than the creators of V8 and Dart?

https://github.com/jbdeboer/angular-dart-js-size/blob/master...

173KB. This is ridiculous.

Say whatever you want about benchmarks, Angular.dart is either a terrible port (quite possible) or Dart's transpiler isn't on the level of CoffeeScript or TypeScript.

>This is the condescending and arrogant attitude I spoke of.

I'm asserting something grand and sweeping that I think to be true. Get over it or walk away.

[detst]

> Some substantial portion of AngularJS devs are unhappy.

Define "substantial". I've seen some complaints here that AngularDart has, and will, take away from AngularJS, which, again, is unsubstantiated. It's counter to the evidence and the likelihood that the groups working together will make both better.

> I'm not arguing for Dart's existence here, I'm saying Dart has absolutely no chance of securing the browser's runtime over javascript.

Uh, you've expressed "cynicism [...] over Google's waste of time" and called Dart "pretty flawed", which you haven't substantiated yet. If your were merely expressing skepticism over Dart "securing the browser's runtime over javascript", there wouldn't be a discussion here. Brendan Eich did that for you a long time ago. I'd contend that it doesn't really matter as long as dart2js can fulfill its goals; however, I'd still maintain a wait-and-see attitude about how we'll see DartVM used. There are some very interesting possibilities.

> 173KB. This is ridiculous.

Substance! Thank you. Dart is pre-1.0. It's being worked on. Also, notice at the bottom of that page:

  We want your help, especially if you can make update
  @MirrorsUsed in main.dart to generate a smaller binary.

> Get over it or walk away.

No, I won't. The attitude isn't conducive to civil discourse and not welcome here so I'll continue calling it out where I see it. I'll take the upvotes as confirmation that others agree with me.

You've got your unsubstantiated opinions and will continue making these "sweeping" claims so there's no point in continuing here. It leaves little room for meaningful discussion, unfortunately.

[Helianthus]

>Dart is pre-1.0. It's being worked on.

Typescript is pre-1.0.

It's telling, to me, that the first argument of mine you take seriously you handwave over by vaguely saying it will get better and it can be fixed.

I'd place a bet that Dart is about as good as it is ever going to be.

>I'll take the upvotes as confirmation that others agree with me.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've got upvotes, too.

>The attitude isn't conducive to civil discourse and not welcome here so I'll continue calling it out where I see it.

Whatever floats your pompous self-righteous boat.

I may be curt, strident, and critical, but you don't really have high ground when it comes to condescension. You went straight to childish insults. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6679901

When I disagree with someone I don't directly call them stupid or immature. (Well, usually.) I may speak and act as if something I believe strongly is obvious, and I may not mask my disdain for the ideas expressed. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but I'm not going to hide the fact that I think you're wrong.

You seem to have a problem that someone a) disagrees with you, and b) says so confidently and forcefully. Again, get over it or walk away. If I'm so wrong and so boorish, you are under no contract to continue.

You can't change me and I am not your responsibility.

Fortunately I think you've finally clued in ("so there's no point in continuing here"). I've certainly spent enough time on this. Later.

[detst]

> Whatever floats your pompous self-righteous boat.

> I may be curt, strident, and critical, but you don't really have high ground when it comes to condescension. You went straight to childish insults. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6679901

Not me. Try again.

[Helianthus]

Hahaha oh hell, I really fucked that one up. My apologies.

Edit: Mind you, you're still self-righteous and pompous, but you're not hypocritical about it. :P