What do you know of my "intact" career or finances, pray tell? As far as I know, you don't know me or anything about what I'm doing for a living, or what my finances look like.
Lying by implication is still lying, and _tu quoque_ is no defense. So @PopeOfNope said "careers destroyed", which I agree is overstated in my case if not in Pax's. That does not justify you making stuff up to assert "intact". Since I cannot retire, I'm doing the next thing, and we shall all see how intact I am when it launches.
As for "censure", look it up. All the definitions that do not include the essential adjective "official" have to do with judgment, and unofficial judgments like all opinions vary. Mozilla received more criticism from all sides (and still does) than I did over what happened last spring.
BTW, I came here via subtweets. Feel free to at-name me directly in the future.
Right, I was not "destroyed", much as soi-disant "SJW"s may wish that I were.
The high-priority destruction question is about Mozilla, not about me. Mozilla needs a more crisp differentiated value proposition against its well-heeled competitors, on top of minimum basic competence (E10S). Threatening to break add-on compat does not help to differentiate.
More succinctly: SQLite version whatever is specified only by its C source code, and C is woefully underspecified. Lots of Undefind Behavior on top of the memory-unsafe codebase itself. This is not a specification from which two independently implemented interoperable implementations could be written. Ergo, not a standard.
Don't try to pretend the Prop 8 campaign was some reasonable, thoughtful discussion of the impacts of gay marriage on society. Prop 8 was a campaign of hate directed against a historically maligned minority, designed to prevent that group from gaining acceptance. The ads implied crazy off-the-wall shit like recruitment of children (read between the lines: homosexuals are pedophiles) and that somehow children being told that homosexuality is OK is a horrible thing.
No one implied any such thing, but you will read that into any ad defending parental rights to educate small children. There's no point in arguing if your premise is anyone who does not agree with you is a hateful bigot. Hence the comic, hope you enjoyed it!
So, I was right to begin with: Eich unapologetically contributed material support to a campaign of hate against many of his own employees, and it's entirely justified for such a person to be ousted from a leadership position in a company that doesn't wish to lose many of its gay and gay-friendly employees.
(If you are Eich, I apologize for the awkward third-person conversation. I don't have any proof of your identity and I don't want to attribute anything said here to him without it.)
A non-issue? Literally every article I can find about the resignation is backed by a discussion about Eich's anti-gay stance. The position at CEO lasted roughly a week before the resignation. OKCupid put up a big anti-Mozilla notice as a result of the appointment; I have a hard time describing that as "good relations." Unless you're willing to put forward some new insider information, it's really hard to believe that such noise was not a factor, if not THE factor, in the resignation.
Why did Eich resign after a week if not for the outrage at his anti-gay stance?
As has been mentioned elsewhere, only about 10 or so people in entire Mozilla organisation opposed Eich. He was near-universally supported. Nobody on the Mozilla board cited Eich's politics as an issue. (This didn't stop false news stories about how board members had stepped down in protest of Eich's politics.)
You're right, I am equating those, because they are all equal. Whatever label you put on it, opposition to same-sex marriage makes the statement that you believe that love between same-sex couples is inferior to that between opposite-sex couples; that you need to ensure your children grow up to have that same belief; that homosexuals are something to disapprove of, something to fear; that you have a deep fear of your child turning out to be homosexual. Whether or not you come out and say those statements (and many of your "traditionalist" colleagues are not afraid to say them outright), all of those statements are clearly implied and wildly hurtful to homosexual individuals, and their friends and family.
This is why you saw such a violent reaction to your being placed as CEO. The fact that you didn't last a week means that you and the Mozilla board are so blind to the harm that your positions inflict on your own employees and their friends and family that the appointment itself was taken as an insult, and this is ignoring your continued refusal to see the harm that you are doing. And I say this as a huge Mozilla fan (see my comments elsewhere in this thread).
You made it clear that you will use a position of power, in this case money, to put down and insult those who work under you. Why should anyone have to put up with that? Mozilla employees are lucky to live in a time and industry when they could express their disapproval and have it acted upon in a positive way. I feel for others who are in less fortunate positions.
Mozilla Corporation employees did not express disapproval while I was still CEO, and nothing from employees resulted in me leaving. When I had to tell key LGBT supporters I was resigning, they were aghast and asked me not to step down (from CEO; this was before it was clear that I was resigning from Mozilla).
You're still in that echo chamber. I can get some sounds in, but they're distorted and attenuated. Here's one loud clue: marriage as a legally regulated institution has nothing to do with "love", or (contra Kennedy for the majority) "self expression". If that were all that's involved in marriage, it should not be subject to state coercion at all.
I'll leave it at that, and thank rmxt for dropping a link.
Without access to marriage and the rights it brings, children of same-sex couples had to go through legal ordeals, facing orphanage, if their biological parent dies despite another (now single) parent being available.
Other marriage benefits, especially hospital visitation and rights after a partner's death, weren't conferred to partners as they weren't legally recognized.
Civil unions were obviously at best a stepping stone. "Separate but equal" does not have a good history in this country.
You've heard these arguments before,
> Fat lot of good that did me.
so tell us. How have you been harmed by gay marriage's legalization?
In what way does your objection to your employees' having rights not disqualify you from the CEO position?
I agree on empirical suicide risks for people outside various norms. Prop 8 and marriage as regulated by law had ~zero to do with that. Canada and The Netherlands provide a decade+ data showing how little correlation. Look into it before spouting off to me.
Other marriage benefits, indeed all the ones also granted by the state of California to Domestic Partners, are not material. There are non-sexual relationships among long-term (grand-) mother/daughter and friendship-based dyads who deserved those positive rights. Shame on the majority in past decades for yoking these to marriage, but they also do not argue in the least for redefining marriage from its heteronormative (cis- or trans-, note well) basis.
How am I harmed? The pretext for my leaving Mozilla was the outrage/status-display campaign, even if that can't possibly explain all the facts. In your view, I was harmed, and justly so -- but people disagree on justice, so in general, by your own rubriks, I was harmed.
(In case you are unaware, google CA 1101-1102 statutes. These were based on case law starting from "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph".)
Beyond me, you already have telegraphed that it's un-PC, and possibly punishable by the full (lethal) force of the state, for someone like a creative/discretionary small business owner (baker, florist, printer, etc.) to demur from your point of view. And you've said it's hateful for parents to want to protect their children from propaganda.
Go on, prove me wrong: do you think there should be no legal sanction against bakers, florists, printers, restaurants, private schools, small businesses, and parents? Note the case law on side of printers, e.g., who need not be compelled to print materials to which they object. Note well this protects LGBT-owned print-shops.
> How am I harmed? The pretext for my leaving Mozilla was the outrage/status-display campaign, even if that can't possibly explain all the facts. In your view, I was harmed, and justly so -- but people disagree on justice, so in general, by your own rubriks, I was harmed.
Wait, what? You lost your job because of your homophobia. I demonstrated how homosexual individuals were harmed by lacking the right to marry. I asked how you were harmed by SSM becoming legal.
You asked how I was harmed in general. My "homophobia" (the Greek roots make no sense) justifies nothing in what you think was the just-desserts outcome at Mozilla, even if your school-child Marxoid morality tale version of that event were accurate (and it's not).
Beyond that, your cropped reply chopped everything I wrote about bakers, florists, printers, schools, parents. Respond to that, if you can.
Whining for the poor Google-Goliath, blaming little Mozilla-David, is rich. No comment on the Pocket deal or other recent Mozilla changes. On this tangent about Dart, I'm happy that Chrome people prevailed.
It's hard not to personalize things like what Oliver Hunt said in ,
"The issue here isn't "can we make multiple vms live in webkit" it's "can we expose multiple languages to the web", to the former i say obviously as we already do, to the latter I say that we don't want to."
The general tone Oliver had was akin to saying only little-endian machines should be supported on the Web. Not because of some technically proven deficiency in the idea of allowing big-endian machines, but because "we don't want to." I can only imagine if such logic had been applied to other parts of the Web. Technical problems always have a solution.
Oliver is not me, nor has he ever worked for Mozilla. But you are not the OP, so this is all just more mistargeted drive-by and taking-it-too-personally complaining.
There are not multiple GC'ed VMs in Safari sharing the DOM, so I bet Oliver was talking about things like JSC as another way to script Apple stuff than Obj-C (now Swift). But that's not material to the DartVM/OilPan vs. Chrome issue.
Please read anything I've written on the topic over the years.
Java runs as a plugin, like Flash. It has no deep DOM integration.
Both Java and Flash have become security problems, so they're in various penalty boxes, beyond the plugin prison.
Back in 1995, when I did JS in the shadow of Java, as a sidekick Robin-the-boy-hostage language, I did the primordial DOM too. Java was in only applets then -- pretty much the same as a plugin. We did connect JS and Java via LiveConnect, which led to the JRI (Warren Harris at Netscape), which led to the JNI. To solve the GC problem, the JRI user had to manage handles for global and local roots.
This did not solve the inter-heap cycle problem, however. Netscape never implemented a cycle collector, but we did at Mozilla, based on [Bacon & Rajan, 2001]. It was required for C++ and JS cycle collection. Around that time, IE would still leak memory if you made a C++/JS cycle by capturing certain global object property references in closures. Their C++ side used COM reference counting, so once the cycle closed through JScript, there was no way to drop the cycle-internal refcount.
Mozilla's C++/JS cycle collector was originally meant to handle C-Python too (and possibly other languages with full XPCOM/DOM access), since we had an optional integration of that engine, courtesy Mark Hammond of Active State. But both the C-Python integration and the polyglot support in the CC got ripped out. Browsers cannot afford overhead, even mostly-dead (but still hazardous in the 0day sense) code.
(Updated to note that LiveConnect is long-gone too. Java is just a plugin.)
I suspect you still have not read Filip Pizlo's post at that lists.webkit.org link I left, or the paper it references. Please take more time to study problems before casting aspersions!
What aspersions? I've noted your opposition to Dart. You've explained that it has to do with memory management difficulties that seem intractable. I now understand this better, so I thank you. The world has moved on and now transpilers are coming into their own, so we do have real choice in the language we use in the browser, which as a programmer is all I want.
What aspersions? Let's start with your "Mozilla disliked Dart", full of personalizing words that obfuscate the objective arguments. Just the "dislike" usage is subjective and vague -- and inaccurate when applied to my comments on HN about Dart.
DartVM never had a chance, I told 'em so and gave concrete reasons why it didn't. Worse, the leaked DASH memo was arrogant and wrong in declaring that JS "cannot be fixed by evolving the language". Anders Hejlsberg gently pushed back against that bogus assertion in 2012:
(Note that Mark Miller did not write this memo, he just accidentally posted it to a public Google Group thinking that group was private to Google employees.)
A lot of water under the bridge since 2010, and some of it had good effects for Dart users for sure, even with Dart now only a compile-to-JS language. But a lot was wasted. Dart could have used bignums (Dart `int` support) in ES6, for example, and this would have helped JS users too. The lack of it is a direct cost of focusing on DartVM at the expense of dart2js; see
You are right that I disliked the stinky politics and enormous question-begging on display in the DASH memo. (That's me disliking a set of bad arguments, not me disliking Dart.) It was a statement of intent, to fund a project because some people of note wanted to do that project, even if it wouldn't work cross-browser, and even if it imposed high opportunity cost to JS both in Chrome (the whole V8 team had to be reconstituted in Munich) and in Ecma TC39 (no one showed up to argue for better cross-compiling support in general).
WebAssembly should grow dynamic language support for Dart and languages like it, but that's years out. In the mean time, only JS as compile-from-Dart target is available. ES6 could have used the help.
It's fine for well-funded entities to waste money on boondoggles (well, not really, but I was not a shareholder, and Google is free to "experiment" for any reason it pleases). But I'm not obligated to praise a bogus justification when it leaks, or honor the two-faced way that JS was dealt with in the memo, and evident from the direct and opportunity costs of DartVM.
> That's me disliking a set of bad arguments, not me disliking Dart.
I stand corrected. Yes, I've read all the memos and watched all the videos, including this one when I knew Dart wasn't going to make it into Chrome for the first time. I knew it by Blink engineering lead Darin Fischer's reaction when asked about Dart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJob8K_OwE at 17:25] To me it looked like he laughed and sort of scoffed, then he and another member talked Dart down. Maybe it is a failing of mine to look at emotional content when considering issues, but doing so sometimes imparts useful information.
I think we agree on most of this and I apologize. It wasn't my intention to offend you. Dart still has a chance if they can get the translator to ES6 to work, and I don't see why not, so I hope to use Dart when and where it makes sense.
Thanks for the reply and apols -- no hard feelings.
At least the new Dart compiler generates nice JS, and the future efforts on Dart and JS look more aligned. We still don't have a bignum champion in TC39, but we do have great SIMD championing from John McCutchan (who started it) and Daniel Ehrenberg of Google; Dan Gohman of Mozilla; Peter Jensen, et al., of Intel; and others at Microsoft whose names I'm not remembering. This leads to value types as an extension mechanism, so we should get bignums sooner or later.
On whether DartVM was justified as a hedge against Java going away on Google, I've heard that too, but both for Java on the Google server side and for Android Java, I have never seen any evidence to support this notion. I'd want to see an efficient AOT compiler from Java classfiles to Dart, for example. Another example: some convincing work on library/framework parity on the server side to go along with Dart's (very nice) DOM and client side libraries.
Perhaps such work was kept behind firewalls. If instead it was just a case of saying "oh, we may be able to use DartVM if things go south with Oracle", that velleity hardly counts as an intentional, operational Java replacement strategy.
Thanks, but no thanks. For one thing, your inference from individuals created equal to normative, dyadic special positive rights (marriage) is unsound. Dyadic (or polygamous -- why not?) rights are not individual rights. They do not attach to all pairs of individuals, and never did.
There's no cog-dis in my position under my definitions, which do not match your definitions. I'm a founder of Mozilla, which for over a decade admitted everyone, up to (me) co-founder or (again: me, but then Andreas Gal) CTO, or VP, or Distinguished Engineer level, all from various creeds or beliefs or "axiom" backgrounds -- so long as they left their baggage out of their Mozilla work.
That changed in the last few years. Now the culture-war dissidents are staying quiet, and living on borrowed time. This is not a matter of contradictions being punished on a logical basis, since there is no contradiction given their choice of axioms. It's about winners burning losers' cultural camps to the ground. In two word, consequentialism; totalitarianism.
Polygamous marriages change the core identity of marriage: that it is, as you say, a dyadic undertaking. That polygamous marriages might be legalized is a tenuous argument that is being spread up and down these forums. Sliding polygamous marriage in while the topic is about gay marriage is changing the subject at best, and dishonest at worst. Legalizing gay marriage is about equality, allowing polygamous marriages reinforces inequality between individuals. While we are at it, bestiality/pedophilia/etc. won't magically be next either for marriage: those acts are currently illegal because they create a dynamic of harm, as opposed to one of mutual support, between two individuals.
I would argue that the right to marry is not inherently a dyadic right. Before the latest law, certain people were categorically denied the sort of marriage they (as an individual) wanted because of a quality that they (as an individual) possessed and likely have no control over. Gay marriage changes nothing about the institution of marriage for any other person, and the administrative differences for the government are practically nil.
Accepting your definition of the "right to marry" as a "dyadic right", where do the basis for these sorts of rights come from, if not from the same source as the basis for "individual rights"? Where does the line between "all individuals are equal" and "these pairs of individuals cannot be considered the same as these other pairs of individuals" get drawn? How is the denial of marriage to an individual not a slight to the equality of that individual?
Lastly, I would venture to say that I am not a totalitarianist, nor a consequentialist. There is most definitely room for expression of contrasting opinions in the marketplace of ideas. I do apologize for the brashness above, but I fail to see what "culture" people like me are destroying when they are promoting equal application of rights. A culture whose identity is formed around restricting the abilities of others doesn't seem like much of a culture at all. (If it's being burned to the ground by criticism, it seems fair to say that that's a critical part of its identity.) To play the same sort of game that the polygamist argument relies on: these arguments sound an awful lot like the arguments for Jim Crow laws and against interracial marriage.
I wish you the best and apologies for any personal vitriol that my posts may seem to contain.
Too many notes - or words, to borrow from the Emperor in "Amadeus".
You assume dyadic marriage without stating the premise that justifies state regulation of dyads and prohibition of three or more. Self-expression is a nonsensical reason and in any case no grounds for state licensure. Plural marriage has been normative in certain times and places, and still is here and there.
When it comes to polygamy, you seem only too happy to restrict the asserted positive rights of others. I shall refrain from screeching "bigot!" or trying to get you fired.
Special-pleading from unstated and unjustified assumptions gets us nowhere. Post-Obergefell America must define the common good of marriage clearly to exclude or admit polygamy. I see no reason why, given self-expression and ersatz-dignity arguments used by the majority, three or more should be outlawed.
The alternative is to end state regulation of marriage, and deal with normal consequences such as offspring and estate succession (not to mention hospital and jail visitation, which should not have been yoked to marriage in the first place) via contract law.
(I'm not taking your anti-SSM=anti-miscegenation pattern matching bait - see Jonathan Rauch here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-ga... - and yes, I'm aware of Rauch's work in full, no need to cite his lame attempt to draw a line in the sand against polygamy. As for what camps might be burned to the ground: florists, bakers, colleges, the list grows - open your eyes.)
I personally don't care whether plural marriage is legal or illegal. Seeing as the looming threat of plural marriage appears to be your strongest argument against gay marriage and state regulation of marriage as a whole, really makes me think you have no good arguments outside of ones that justify your personal beliefs.
My "unstated and unjustified assumptions" amount to the current state of affairs in the West: governments regulate marriage, marriage regulation currently restricts this covenant to pairs, and there is a non-negligible amount of people that are being denied this covenant because of natural qualities that they (likely) cannot change. Point blank: is this discrimination? I don't care about what implications it has for plural marriage, I am talking strictly about SSM.
And, for all your talk about premises, justifications and strict logic, you're fantastically excluding the middle ground, jumping to "no regulation of marriage," thus ignoring reality to play consequentialist. The state regulates marriage at the moment, so let's operate within that ballpark, no? Maybe one day we can live in a "paradise" where contracts are the only things binding us to one another, but until that day...
If you can handwave away the pattern matching for interracial marriage, then it's no less fair to handwave away the polygamist argument.
How will the cultures of "florists, bakers, colleges" burn to the ground? What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage being legalized? We are obviously coming from a different set of beliefs... if I could "open my eyes" to see what horrors gay marriage will bring, we wouldn't being having this discussion.
I'm not arguing against SSM here, I'm arguing against your just-so story about magical marriage of only ever dyads. You have not made a single clear statement of the common good of marriage, just "it's that way [dyadic] so it has to be that way."
You do realize this argument works against SSM, as well as against polygamy, right?
Being cagey or agnostic about the next step after SSM ("mmmaybe I do support polygamy, but one step at a time!") does not answer the question: why should the state regulate marriage, to what ends?
If your eyes are still closed, read @JVLast's piece (and no ad hominem arguments against him or TWS, which I do not endorse in general). He is not the only one to point out the shifting goal posts and bad-faith argumentation (in the style of Alinsky, or Marx).
Fair point. I had never heard of the concept of "just-so stories." Discarding everything and creating a new framework from the ground-up would be great, and perhaps the best way of doing things. It appears that "just-so stories" are the quick retort and dismissal for arguments from evolution and nature. ("Humans, great apes, etc. naturally form bond pairs" statements and the like.) Despite this, I think that we both accept that the state should regulate contract agreements for the benefit of both parties involved (e.g. ensuring enforcement, reducing exploitative contracts, unless you go full-on anarcho-capitalist). If we want to call a type of contract, between two parties, for a specific purpose (financial interdependence, possibly rearing children, etc.), a certain "m-word," then why is it absurd for the state to regulate this special type of contract, but not any other contract? The state regulating contracts has benefits (that I think we both accept), the state regulating marriage shares many of those same common goods, such as ensuring fulfillment, ensuring an absence of duress, and the like.
As for the question of "why dyadic?" but not poly... the complexities built into poly marriage are intrinsically different than one-one marriage. Our current legal system isn't ready to handle poly marriage, to bite the bullet that you've offered me. It is hard to separate out the impacts of polygamy from other cultural impacts, but some speculate that polygamy has some unique negative impacts on childrearing. 
I would still ask that my question from above be answered. Given our current frameworks and regulations, was the denial of the civil acknowledgement of SSM a form of discrimination?
My flippant attitude in past comments notwithstanding, I am terrified at the backlash that you continue to receive. Frankly, I didn't realize how all-pervasive it was, nor do I ever personally feel the need to get on Twitter to insult people (a la your link) or call for a third party's head (a la your personal story). Criticism and questioning for fitness of a particular role is one thing, but public evisceration is another. I can acknowledge and accept a opposing position whereby one seeks to abolish the civil institution of marriage altogether, for gay, straight, whatever, alike, which is what I'm coming to understand your position to be. But, I do find it hard to fathom how one can decide that "today's line" gets drawn before gay marriage, while also somehow respecting and acting fairly towards gay people in their day-to-day lives (which is where I thought your beliefs laid before this exchange). My sympathy ends there. Personally, I won't be one to crusade for the personal decimation that you seem to think I enjoy. I do believe that creating a culture whereby one is building up "pseudo-reasons" against gay marriage, like talking about looming bestiality and pedophilia, is as despicable as those that are using their sexuality to create misery for others. (Like the culturally vindictive lesbian woman in your article. By no means am I a prude: her path to children doesn't make me cringe, but her quote-on-quoted attitude does.)
Implicit self-righteousness regarding illumination aside, I break the TWS article into a couple of mish-mashes of fearmongering, mixed with some valid points about malicious intent amongst specific members of the SSM/LGBT movement:
- Statistics that attempt to minimize the weight that is, or should be, given to the "homosexual agenda," as this article would imply that there's such a coherent and unified front, by the mere fraction of LGQ people in the population. Civil rights are civil rights, no matter how great or small the magnitude.
- Statistics and quotes that attempt to criticize the way of life of LGQ people by implying that there is something wrong with less-than-monogamous relationships while married.
- Highlighting questionable behaviors and attitudes co-opted by people who also happen to be LGQ (people using impregnation as a tool of retribution are idiots regardless of orientation)
- Some really outright fearmongering about state interference in direct religious ceremonies. (Requiring that religiously affiliated employers give out birth control is pretty sane, thinking that somehow the state will turn to mandating that priests must marry gay people in a church/synagogue/etc. is not sane. What might be sane is to say that all marriage license clerks, regardless of religious affiliation, must adhere to the federal law. That's not a hindrance to whatever a particular religion's beliefs are.)
- Highlighting particular cases of activists that are pushing the cultural envelope for the definition of the "m-word". I don't understand the need for this here... the author doesn't exactly state why this person is doing a bad thing, but merely is preaching to a choir that must already think 3+ marriages are distasteful.
- The entire last page is one big "begging the question"...
The article doesn't answer what "culture" will explicitly be destroyed by the legalization of gay marriage. It speculates that cultural change may abound and be desired by the LGBT movement. The article is hypocritical in that it is seeking a "live-and-let-live" approach to be taken by LGBT supporters ("let the Catholic Charities adopt out to whomever they want"), while at the same time implying that LGBT people shouldn't be allowed to marry one another ("let two people get married if they want to get married"). There is bad faith on part of some of LGBT activists; some want far more than equality. Let's not kid ourselves though, bad faith on the part of some LGBT activists is no excuse for not working within the pre-existing legal and cultural frameworks that the West has, and striving for equality under those frameworks.
This is perhaps the biggest whopper of all: "Support for traditional marriage stems from many sources, including respect for natural law and the prudential concern that holding any line will become impossible once the core definition of marriage is tampered with." What is "traditional marriage"? What is "the core definition?" For this articles audience, presumably the "core definition" is that it's a man and a woman. These are the exact same arguments that you are criticizing me for, and they are a shift of the goal posts. How can one argue for the legalization of anything, if all one wants to do is point to this line that we supposedly must maintain? It's not fair to have to argue against a slippery slope.
Please read the comment to which you link. I was not hostile to Dart, rather I did vent a bit in refuting bogus crediting of Dart for things going into JS in ES6/2015 and ES7/2016.
My criticisms of Dart on HN over the years have all been about the way it was developed: in secret first, with an aim to replace JS that could not work, with serious dart2js bugs not in DartVM left to lie for years; and the consequent lack of JS uplift, seeming to bet all on DartVM in the long run.
That long-odds bet did not work out, and it cost years of time during which even more features Dart needs in JS, notably int (bignum) support, could have been done sooner, even possibly in ES6.
All bygones now, but the point here is that I mainly avoided criticizing Dart language design (much is good, some a bit boring as the designers concede) in preference to criticizing the technical politics and market power play.
My own doubts about Dart after using it for a commercial app, began after watching this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AqbCQuK0gM] where Anders Hejlsberg and Lars Bak discuss Dart and TypeScript. I felt Anders made a better case for TypeScript and Lars was feeling a bit threatened, which confirmed for me that Anders was right. Considering where Dart and TypeScript are today, I made the right choice moving to TypeScript.
I'm very glad that the path is much clearer these days and thank you for your efforts to sort these things out.