I was talking about go, which doesn't have generics, optional typing or operator overloading, doesn't really have "classes" (arguable), and a fairly tight type system which covers structs, interfaces and functions in a minimal way.
I don't really have an informed opinion on dart yet, I'm just noting that 90% of the complaints I'm seeing consist of people with a hobby horse that predated the Dart announcement.
I don't really have an informed opinion on dart yet, I'm just noting that 90% of the complaints I'm seeing consist of people with a hobby horse that predated the Dart announcement.
It's a good thing then that the author of this article falls in your 10% group: someone who actually knows a thing or two about language implemetations, and not a hobby horse rider.
He may know a thing or two about language implementations, but his complaints are predictable: he wants it to look more like perl and less like Java. Additionally, his opinions on the implications of their concurrency model are entirely based on perl's implementation and IMO not necessarily correct in another context (message passing was probably chosen specifically to avoid needing heavyweight threads). I'm not a web programmer but those complaints seem superficial to me, I'd probably spend a little time using it before coming to that conclusion.
I don't really have an informed opinion on dart yet, I'm just noting that 90% of the complaints I'm seeing consist of people with a hobby horse that predated the Dart announcement.