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 <apfel...@quantentunnel.de> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
