detst

> Some substantial portion of AngularJS devs are unhappy.

Define "substantial". I've seen some complaints here that AngularDart has, and will, take away from AngularJS, which, again, is unsubstantiated. It's counter to the evidence and the likelihood that the groups working together will make both better.

> I'm not arguing for Dart's existence here, I'm saying Dart has absolutely no chance of securing the browser's runtime over javascript.

Uh, you've expressed "cynicism [...] over Google's waste of time" and called Dart "pretty flawed", which you haven't substantiated yet. If your were merely expressing skepticism over Dart "securing the browser's runtime over javascript", there wouldn't be a discussion here. Brendan Eich did that for you a long time ago. I'd contend that it doesn't really matter as long as dart2js can fulfill its goals; however, I'd still maintain a wait-and-see attitude about how we'll see DartVM used. There are some very interesting possibilities.

> 173KB. This is ridiculous.

Substance! Thank you. Dart is pre-1.0. It's being worked on. Also, notice at the bottom of that page:

  We want your help, especially if you can make update
  @MirrorsUsed in main.dart to generate a smaller binary.

> Get over it or walk away.

No, I won't. The attitude isn't conducive to civil discourse and not welcome here so I'll continue calling it out where I see it. I'll take the upvotes as confirmation that others agree with me.

You've got your unsubstantiated opinions and will continue making these "sweeping" claims so there's no point in continuing here. It leaves little room for meaningful discussion, unfortunately.

> reasoning behind it

In all of your condescending[1] comments, you have forgotten to actually articulate what your reasoning is. These are as close as you got:

  Dart doesn't have the open, cheerful intentions

  Google's overbearing intention is obvious

  flawed language

  this one is doomed to fail

  forced down our throat

[1] I'll Identify these on request. They're unwarranted, counter-productive and rude.

What exactly are those instructions? You or your friend have a misunderstanding. This dual-implementation will benefit the project as a whole (whether you prefer JS or Dart). That's what this is about, not to make JS a second-class citizen because evil Google wants to shove Dart down your throat.

> it was fairly obvious that some of the guys didn't want Dart in there

I don't think it was obvious. It may be true but they were uncontroversial comments on a controversial topic. The language and DartVM aren't ready for Chrome, right now. You'd hear the same from the Dart team.

> we don't need a language to replace javascript

Absolutely... in the same way we didn't need Python, Ruby, C++, Java, Clojure, Haskell, etc. In fact, I'd say we needed those less considering the enormous choice on non-web platforms.

Certainly possible but remember that "contractor" and "employee" have legal definitions. You can't "just" call an employee (by the legal definition) a contractor.

(Edit: I see ljoshua beat me to the possibility for issues here but it's important to emphasize that it can be done, just play by the rules to avoid trouble down the line.)

They have deprecation policies in at least some cases. They may not be unconditional guarantees but they're still just risk factors to be evaluated individually. I have no problem with the risk averse avoiding any services for their own reasons but it's gone beyond that in many cases here on HN to pure FUD. In any case, you've taken that clause out of context.

> Since this service is paid, I could be netting a lot of money through it, only for it to fizzle out.

But that's true of any service from any company. If I'm a stay-at-home mom making some extra cash on Helpouts, I have a very different risk profile than a doctor who closes down his practice to see patients exclusively through Helpouts. The stay-at-home mom might not be happy about a shutdown but she still "[netted] a lot of money" whereas the doctor might have destroyed his/her career. Every individual/company needs to assess their own risk and take the appropriate risk-mitigating actions.

The point I'm making is that the damages from a Google service shutdown are typically very low or easily mitigated (Google Checkout being no exception) and every service should be evaluated on an individual basis with your risk profile. If the value you are getting from any service is lower than the damages that would result from a shutdown, don't put all of your eggs in that basket; if you do anyway, get some contractual guarantees and be confident that they will be fulfilled.

> I wonder if enough people avoid new Google products due to shutdown fears [...]

I doubt it. That attitude is mostly a HN/geek thing. I like that they're willing to try things and test for viability in the real world. I'd rather have something and for it go away than to never have it at all. (And yes, I do understand the frustrations with Reader but I wouldn't go back in time and never use it from the start)

> When the boss disrespects customers in front of his team, that sets the upper limit for how well customers will be treated by the company.

A single incident sets the upper limit? We don't know what kind of example he sets on a day-to-day basis. Customer service is a mentally taxing job. If I'm the person on the front line, I'm thinking, "at least the boss understands and has my back" rather than feeling defeated. Some customers are just bad customers; sure, try to understand and sympathize but there comes a point to tell them to "fuck off" (in the appropriate customer-service language).

The only thing wrong here is that it leaked out to the customer.

> I've seen this happen to a few of my friends who hit it big [...] it's like the insatiable drive to achieve that made that possible just evaporates.

This hits many people after just talking about their goals. They get the same good feelings of achievement that lead to de-motivation to follow through with it.