Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I'm sorry, but 2,300 lines of code is in no way acceptable as a "dead code"-eliminated Hello World program. Not by a longshot.

If all you use javascript for is console.log("Hello World"); then v8 will seem unnecessarily large too.

If all you do is one DOM transformation then jquery will seem huge compared to just doing it by hand (probably hundreds or thousands of lines of code vs 3).

I guess at this point I'm just repeating the OP, but this is simply in no way demonstrative of Dart. It can at best serve as a learning tool of the internals (and perhaps there are valid criticisms once you look at those), but any conclusion on code size is very flawed from this one example.

jQuery is huge compared to doing it by hand, and I actually chose against jQuery for a web service targeted at mobile phones.

However, in the case of jQuery the productivity / KB ratio is freakishly huge.

I fail to see how that will be the case for a new programming language. Javascript is already fast and still improving in bounds and leaps. It is also finally possible to write correct cross-browser code with the help of jQuery and CoffeeScript. It is a true standard.

What can Dart really provide that Javascript cannot?

Refactoring tools? Some people would like that, but it still won't be bullet proof (as I understand the static types in Dart are optional), and there's nothing worse that a tool on which you can't rely on (personally I hate the Intellisense attempts being made in IDEs for Ruby or Python).

What about speed? Well, Java/Quake2 was compiled to Javascript using GWT and it worked just fine -- what more could you want from a sandboxed environment? To me, these days big page load times either on my desktop or on my mobile are almost always related to bandwidth.

v8 actually runs the code, though, so it's not an accurate comparison.

(That said, this thread is just silly. I don't like Dart because it looks like it's built for obsolescense, but the hello world extrapolation is nonsense, as has been pointed out.)

What language do you program in where the dependencies are not as heavy as they are here? The only difference I can tell is that it's hidden from you.

The other difference is that they are not transferred over wire (once if developers were careful or on every request if they were not).

  $ cat hello.c 
  int main() { printf("Hello, world!\n"); }
  $ gcc hello.c
  $ ls -l a.out 
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 brian  staff   8.5K Oct 11 02:23 a.out*
And that's compiled code! And it also links to libc! But then again, any JS program requires tons of compiled C/C++ code to run.

See here for an effort to create the smallest possible hello world x86 ELF binary: http://timelessname.com/elfbin/

His original C app was about 6k, and 3k when stripped of debug symbols. Not content, he switched to assembly, which got him down to ... nah, I won't spoil the rest. ;)

That's dynamically loaded, try it with the runtime

    $ gcc hello.c
    $ ls -l a.out
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 maht maht 4511 Oct 11 16:38 a.out
    $ gcc --static hello.c
    $ ls -l a.out
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 maht maht 574106 Oct 11 16:38 a.out

Do you even understand programming? It includes the runtime, dammnit.

A C hello world (#include "stdio.h", int main(void){printf("Hello World\n"); return 0; }) produces an 8K executable on my Mac.

8K --you know, they used to write whole games in 8K.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact