re: brand new: fine, wait until it isn't brand new
re: lock in: I'd think Mozilla isn't really locked in as long as there is a cross-compiler. If you decide the the code bloat isn't worth the speed improvement (for the sites that run dart code), yank the VM and no harm done
re: opportunity cost: well the code from Google can be dropped in, unless you really feel the need to rewrite your own version.
re: "free lunch to a competitor": it sounds like if there is is potential for another "browser war", it's coming from that sort of attitude. In fact, that sounds counter to the whole concept of open source.
re: "It doesn't matter how good Dart is.": well, that's a shame. I'd like to think merit counted for something.
Overall, maybe I don't know your world and the politics etc, but it just sounds like a lot of "not invented here" syndrome to me. And I say this as someone who genuinely admires your work and really likes Javascript (and am especially pleased that Dart looks enough like Javascript to be comfortable to me).
You seem new to software. Every addition costs. The 2nd scripting engine in particular. Mozilla went through this to no avail with CPython several years ago. I paid Mark Hammond to do the integration work. It was a constant source of bugs and overhead, and without CPython distribution on Windows, and sane versioning on Mac and Linux, no one used the non-JS code paths save ActiveState in Komodo.
WebKit is supporting Python bindings but that language is 3rd after Objective-C and Apple pays the big Obj-C costs.
My comment about Dart's merits was purely a businessman's evaluation, not NIH. Before you throw that accusation my way, consider Mozilla using Google WebM code, and lately implementing SPDY.
You expect other competing browsers to give Google a strategic free lunch, and to give up their share of influence in standards bodies? No way, not from us, or from Apple or Microsoft or Opera.
But it turns out Dart does not have obvious merit, such that I am moved to implement it (see SPDY for a counter-example). Dart is jejune, knee-jerk, and conservative in its design, from what I have now seen.
I have no doubt that there would be a cost associated with hooking in Google's code. And I'll take you at your word that it's not NIH, even though a casual reader might guess that you might be a bit more personally invested in Javascript than you'd be in the various things that, say, WebM seeks to replace.
Regardless, I'll leave your words to speak for themselves without further debating. I'll admit I'm a tad disappointed at the level of defensiveness and name calling (of both your competition and of those you debate with), though.
Well, uh, I guess if you put it that way, I sure better....
Whether you want to debate whether the term "name calling" is accurate or not, I would suggest that the following fall astray of Hacker New's guidelines of "the principle here is not to say anything you wouldn't say face to face". Then again, I don't know.....maybe you are that way in person too.
"Grow up!"
"Such ignorance. Willful? You seem new around here, and you are not using your real name"
"How old are you, to never learn or else to forget this?"
"So your trollish commentary notwithstanding"
"I despair of your reading comprehension"
"Am I promising you a pony? No, but then you are not a three-year old."
"(or go back to school and learn how to argue)"
"Dart is jejune, knee-jerk, "
and of course:
"You had better put up or shut up"
Really? It seems you're quite a prominent figure to need to resort to that sort of schoolyard talk, but do as you wish. I'm not going to be baited anymore.
Name-calling means calling a person a name. If I say "Joe is an idiot", I have called Joe a name.
If, on the other hand, I call someone's behavior or rhetoric out, then that person has room to back up. We all make mistakes -- definitely me included.
Your previous comment accused me of NIH without evidence. I talk back to that kind of crap. I'm not baiting you. Let us take each other at our word.
For what its worth, I felt really awkward reading many of your replies in this thread. You are our spokesperson for JavaScript and the CTO of Mozilla. It would be nice if you could talk to people without making disparaging and downright condescending remarks.
I look up to you to speak for the community and to use judgement and character. Anyways, maybe I'm just being too sensitive, but I figured I'd say something.
I've played with it today and the joy I admittedly feel was quite similar to what I felt when coding LISP. However, I only coded LISP in academia and would not feel comfortable at all using it in a live environment.
For now, I see DART as a proof of concept kind of thing and it definitely should /not/ gain widespread support any time soon. No matter how much money Google will throw at it.
re: lock in: I'd think Mozilla isn't really locked in as long as there is a cross-compiler. If you decide the the code bloat isn't worth the speed improvement (for the sites that run dart code), yank the VM and no harm done
re: opportunity cost: well the code from Google can be dropped in, unless you really feel the need to rewrite your own version.
re: "free lunch to a competitor": it sounds like if there is is potential for another "browser war", it's coming from that sort of attitude. In fact, that sounds counter to the whole concept of open source.
re: "It doesn't matter how good Dart is.": well, that's a shame. I'd like to think merit counted for something.
Overall, maybe I don't know your world and the politics etc, but it just sounds like a lot of "not invented here" syndrome to me. And I say this as someone who genuinely admires your work and really likes Javascript (and am especially pleased that Dart looks enough like Javascript to be comfortable to me).