It's the most open language I know, fully OSS'ed with an extended license to include any implicit patents (removing Patent FUD), developed out in the open and accepting 3rd party contributions and inviting feedback to influence language design.
Lars Bak also mentioned at Google I/O that they're in the process of trying to get it standardized, not sure what's left to do to make it any more "open" and inviting.
Let's not pretend that Google's open source products in any way follow an open development process. Do you notice anything in common about the recent committers?
Their development is very much insular. That's not to say it's a poor idea to depend on these products, but they don't compare to projects like Python with formal processes for revisions (PEP) or at least some discussion.
It would be nice if Google maintained mirrors on Github and accepted pull requests and such, but I don't see that ever happening.
If code reviews are happening in the open and there's a process to bring new contributors on board, that's a great start. This early in the game, you can't expect random members of the open source community to start contributing more than a dedicated team at Google.
> It would be nice if Google maintained mirrors on Github and accepted pull requests and such, but I don't see that ever happening.
I really don't understand why people insist that "open" must mean a project is open to every and all random contributions from people outside the project. The source code is there for you to use as you please. If you want your ideas committed to the mainstream you have to persuade the people in charge.
I have to wonder what agenda drives people to claim that this is not "in any way" an open development process.
Actually, I wish Dart were a little less open and had more of a directed focus. Some one like a Linus needs to step in once in awhile and say "you're wasting your time talking about that feature because it's never going to happen."
How about putting it in the care of an independent foundation like the Python Software Foundation? Until Dart is wrested from corporate control Python will still be the more open language.
How would that make it better? Are software foundations some magical thing that makes all software that comes out of them better? Is this hatred toward large companies?
Direction coming from a company that has a goal for the language can be a good thing. Java was an amazing language for a number of years until Sun decided to let it languish.
Dart is under a very open license that anyone can take any part of the language and use it for their own. The website, spec, vm, analyzer, compiler, and editor are all under open and free licenses. If people get fed up with Google's handling of Dart, they can fork it.
The original claim was that there was no language as open as Dart. I vehemently disagree. Plenty of languages are as open as Dart, and there are several, including Python that are more open. I believe you are underestimating the importance of a language having its own foundation that exists for the sole purpose of ensuring that a language remains vibrant and free. Do you think the PSF would ever make a contributor sign a document before contributing as Google requires for Dart? Also, do you think it's better for a corporation to own the trademark for a programming language's name, or an independent, community run organization? Google owns DART's trademark.
I think Java is a great example of why corporate programming languages are a bad thing. Do you remember the first wave of Java adoption? Do you remember how it was adopted in all sorts of places it had no business being because Sun rammed it down everyone's throats through their sales force? The core of Java and the engineering behind the VM are thanks to Gosling, not Sun.
I'm not criticizing Sun here, either. That's just how it was done back then. Sun was positively benevolent compared to the likes of Cincom.
It's the most open language I know, fully OSS'ed with an extended license to include any implicit patents (removing Patent FUD), developed out in the open and accepting 3rd party contributions and inviting feedback to influence language design.
Lars Bak also mentioned at Google I/O that they're in the process of trying to get it standardized, not sure what's left to do to make it any more "open" and inviting.