I disagree.
They added types and interfaces to the language, giving it at least
some type-safety (preventing me from making stupid mistakes that will
only show up at runtime). I didn't look much further, but they _are_
extending the language itself. Coffeescript on the other hand, is just
a different syntax for javascript, not really adding any features. I
love coffeescript, it's way more readable and concise, but it's just
that, a different syntax.
I do like your suggestion about a bytecode language for browsers.
Although I must say that haskell didn't get very far (as in: usable)
on the other 2 big bytecode platforms (java/.net) yet, but probably
browsers are a much more wanted target.
Mathijs
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Heinrich Apfelmus
Kevin Jardine wrote:
After Google's disappointing Dart announcement yesterday, I decided to tweak them a bit and mention Haskell and functional programming languages as an alternative:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111705054912446689620/posts/UcyLBH7RLXs
Comments on the post are welcome!
I didn't look very carefully, but from a Haskeller's point of view, I can't see any significant difference between Dart and JavaScript, except perhaps for the name. By comparison, CoffeeScript is a way more innovative venture.
A far more useful thing for Google to do would be a standardized bytecode language for the browser; something that can be JITted efficiently while guaranteeing safety/security. This way, the compilation chain
Haskell -> bytecode -> browser
would finally be viable.
Best regards, Heinrich Apfelmus
-- http://apfelmus.nfshost.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe