<story><title>Dart Is Not the Language You Think It Is</title><url>http://programming.oreilly.com/2013/05/dart-is-not-the-language-you-think-it-is.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>mratzloff</author><text>Who is the audience for Dart?  Clearly it is first and foremost Google, whose programmers spend their days writing Java and C++ in an IDE like Eclipse.  But web developers, who are the primary producers of JavaScript, will happily stick with Node.js, CoffeeScript, or plain JavaScript.&lt;p&gt;For that audience, they are given a language with optional static typing (most don&apos;t want it) and an Eclipse-based editor (most don&apos;t want it).&lt;p&gt;By way of contrast, consider Go.  Go is (in my opinion) an extremely successful successor to C, in terms of its design.  It fixes a handful of problems with C (strings, and I would argue pointer arithmetic), and modernizes and streamlines it.  The interface system is fantastic.  In terms of its design, I have nothing but good things to say about Go.&lt;p&gt;Dart does not seem to improve on JavaScript in a compelling way.  It adds optional static typing, and as far as I can tell, nothing else.&lt;p&gt;Is it any surprise that Dart has failed to take off?</text></comment>
<story><title>Dart Is Not the Language You Think It Is</title><url>http://programming.oreilly.com/2013/05/dart-is-not-the-language-you-think-it-is.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>willlll</author><text>Untyped languages are okay. Typed languages are also okay. Typed languages with inference are okay.&lt;p&gt;Optionally typed is extremely strange.</text></comment>