More details have emerged about Google’s forthcoming programming language Dart. Last week we reported that Dart will be officially announced at the GOTO conference in October. A leaked internal Google e-mail has surfaced which outlines a strategy for a new language called “Dash,” which Google hopes will ultimately replace JavaScript as the browser-based scripting language of choice.

Presumably, Dash and Dart are the same language. Among those credited with authoring the e-mail is Lars Bak, who is scheduled to speak at GOTO about Dart. A blog post by Google developer Alex Russell, who’s name is also on the e-mail, unofficially confirms both the authenticity of the e-mail and that Dash and Dart are the same language.

Here’s the executive summary from the e-mail:

Javascript has fundamental flaws that cannot be fixed merely by evolving the
language. We’ll adopt a two-pronged strategy for the future of Javascript:

– Harmony (low risk/low reward): continue working in conjunction with
TC39 (the EcmaScript standards body) to evolve Javascript
– Dash (high risk/high reward): Develop a new language (called Dash) that
aims to maintain the dynamic nature of Javascript but have a better
performance profile and be amenable to tooling for large projects. Push for
Dash to become an open standard and be adopted by other browsers. Developers
using Dash tooling will be able to use a cross-compiler to target Javascript
for browsers that do not support Dash natively.

Russell serves on the standards board that oversees JavaScript (ECMA TC39), and wrote about the e-mail: “It was a draft and doesn’t reflect either the reality of what has happened in the meantime or even the decisions that were taken as a result. And it certainly doesn’t reflect my personal views.” Russell also wrote that Google is “absolutely committed” to improving JavaScript.

JavaScript creator Brendan Eich has already spoken out, both on his blog and on Hacker News against Google for what he describes as a non-standards based approach to pushing new Chrome-centric technology. Eich wrote on Hacker News that he would “expect, nay demand, that Gilad and Lars would do better — much better — than JS,” but has issues with Google’s approach:

The big issue I have with Dart, which you seem to consider inconsequential, is whether Google forks the web developer community, not just its own paid developers, with Dart, and thereby fragments web content.

A Dart to JS compiler will never be “decent” compared to having the Dart VM in the browser. Yet I guarantee you that Apple and Microsoft (and Opera and Mozilla, but the first two are enough) will never embed the Dart VM.
So “Works best in Chrome” and even “Works only in Chrome” are new norms promulgated intentionally by Google. We see more of this fragmentation every day. As a user of Chrome and Firefox (and Safari), I find it painful to experience, never mind the political bad taste.

Ok, counter-arguments. What’s wrong with playing hardball to advance the web, you say? As my blog tries to explain, the standards process requires good social relations and philosophical balance among the participating competitors.

Google’s approach with Dart is thus pretty much all wrong and doomed to leave Dart in excellent yet non-standardized and non-interoperable implementation status. Dart is GBScript to NaCl/Pepper’s ActiveG.

Could Google, unlike Microsoft ten or so years ago, prevail? Only by becoming the new monopoly power on the web. We know how that story ends.

He further clarifies: “My objection is that we have a non-monopoly browser market, not even a duopoly, with pretty good open-standards innovation. Dart goes the other way and puts the open web at risk. It is fragmenting.”

Eich also complains that Dart is being developed in secret by developers who work for Google, which runs counter to the spirit of open source and open standards (see my article on spotting open washing for more on this issue). Eich acknowledged that JavaScript was created much the same way at Netscape and admitted that it was nothing to be proud of. “That was then, and everyone paid a price,” he wrote.

Services Angle

Many enterprises are still stuck using Internet Explorer 6 because of legacy, non-standards compliant elements such as ActiveX. If Google’s intention really is to fork the development community, and it is successful, many enterprises could get stuck dependent on legacy technology again. Using open standards is best practice.