I agree with you. Nobody can argue that compiling to the Java Bytecode (and running on Hotspot) is just as good as compiling to x86. Just because JRuby beats native rubys dosn't mean anything. I would be willing to bet that somebody like Mike Pall or other JIT experts could implment a JIT for Ruby that beats the hell out of JRuby. (Not to say JRuby is bad or something, an effort like this would take more time then implmenting JRuby, I'm just saying it could be done).
Sure everything is turing complet but that says nothing about performace. The JVM does not have tail call optimization but you can simulate it on the heap if you want. Same for all the other assumtions that are in the JVM.
From a buisness-perspectve Dart does the right thing and there arguments are valid. The could just open the Dart VM bytecode so other people could plug-in there but that would make it harder for them to change the VM.
I would much rather see a standard bytecode for some generic Web VM. How a bytecode would look is kind of a research problem. There are many other problems to solve befor something like Web VM model would work. The w3c should maybe start a process that goes in that direction (start gathering proposals, make people think about the problem).
Sure everything is turing complet but that says nothing about performace. The JVM does not have tail call optimization but you can simulate it on the heap if you want. Same for all the other assumtions that are in the JVM.
From a buisness-perspectve Dart does the right thing and there arguments are valid. The could just open the Dart VM bytecode so other people could plug-in there but that would make it harder for them to change the VM.
I would much rather see a standard bytecode for some generic Web VM. How a bytecode would look is kind of a research problem. There are many other problems to solve befor something like Web VM model would work. The w3c should maybe start a process that goes in that direction (start gathering proposals, make people think about the problem).