I found this enticing in a way that my previous glimpses of Dart haven't been. Summary for the video-averse (conclusion begins at 38:03[0]):
– Dead code can be eliminated.
– A little typing goes a long way.
– The DOM doesn't have to suck.
– Built-in syntax, your semantics.
– Classes for stating intent and good tools.
– Don't be evil: compile to Javascript.
For me the notion of swapping out existing client code compilation steps with a Dart compilation step might almost be worth it just for a legible, declarative class syntax. Throw in a vastly improved DOM API and some sensible syntax choices (e.g. same form for calling a getter as accessing a field, avoiding getFoo() boilerplate) and I'm half way to having a play.
I feel pretty confident in saying that we aren't going to find a Dart VM in all (or any?) other browser for the foreseeable future.
With that in mind, Dart just feels like CoffeeScript + jQuery's Sizzle + Underscore. I don't see how using jQuery to create a button is any more "routing around the problem" of DOM creation than using Dart's framework, when they are both translated to document.createElement.
I rather have smaller individually pieces for the greater flexibility it provides. Where Dart clearly has the advantage is in tooling...but that's not nearly enough for me.
Which isn't to say Dart is evil, but I don't see how they'll make web development easier when, in practice (no VM), they aren't bringing anything new.
I don't think the predicted lack of support for a Dart VM outside of Chrome is a significant factor – a strength of the linked video was that it focused on Dart-delivered-as-JS.
> I don't see how using jQuery to create a button is any more "routing around the problem" of DOM creation than using Dart's framework, when they are both translated to document.createElement.
With Dart, you don't need to send 96k of jQuery over the wire. Better, you have the returned elements as a baked-in data type. I imagine there's a pleasant consistency to being able to append an element to a <ul> with the same API you'd use to manipulate any other list.
The inclusion of type information for method parameters makes for some pretty nice tooling. Check out the error checking and code completion at around 30:00
cantlin|13 years ago
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RCuW6K1afs#t=38:04
MatthewPhillips|13 years ago
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Operat... https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global...
latch|13 years ago
With that in mind, Dart just feels like CoffeeScript + jQuery's Sizzle + Underscore. I don't see how using jQuery to create a button is any more "routing around the problem" of DOM creation than using Dart's framework, when they are both translated to document.createElement.
I rather have smaller individually pieces for the greater flexibility it provides. Where Dart clearly has the advantage is in tooling...but that's not nearly enough for me.
Which isn't to say Dart is evil, but I don't see how they'll make web development easier when, in practice (no VM), they aren't bringing anything new.
cantlin|13 years ago
> I don't see how using jQuery to create a button is any more "routing around the problem" of DOM creation than using Dart's framework, when they are both translated to document.createElement.
With Dart, you don't need to send 96k of jQuery over the wire. Better, you have the returned elements as a baked-in data type. I imagine there's a pleasant consistency to being able to append an element to a <ul> with the same API you'd use to manipulate any other list.
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]
thebluesky|13 years ago
arcos|13 years ago
[deleted]