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!
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
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
Heinrich Apfelmus
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.
If you want a useful client-side browser language, which is not just the same as JavaScript with a different syntax, look into Haxe [1]. That one is a statically, strongly typed language, which can be compiled down to JavaScript and other targets (PHP, ActionScript, SWF, C++, etc.). Some of the interesting features of it are algebraic data types, pattern matching, a module system and a rich standard library with lots of functionality which you always missed in JavaScript. It is also a great alternative, if you are forced to deploy PHP code and, like me, can't even find words strong enough to express the intensity of your absolute hate against that "programming language". [1] http://haxe.org/ Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex) http://ertes.de/
participants (4)
-
Ertugrul Soeylemez -
Heinrich Apfelmus -
Kevin Jardine -
Mathijs Kwik