“Historic baggage,” they had written.
Dart, according to the leaked memo, aims to replace JS because JS can’t be fixed. But who says JS can’t be fixed?
Brendan Eich, comments
we do not ever stop the world, break compatibility by changing the language … leaving developers with a huge migration cliff that few will climb … Until you purists get into the muck* of web evolution and development, you won’t be effective.
Brendan Eich, comments
many of us developers are totally against the evil “effective monopoly” … that this not-so-pretty JavaScript language has in the world of web development, so the idea of more options doesn’t sound bad at all.
last time I checked, there was no axiomatic law embedded in the fabric of the universe which stated that “Every desired improvement and/or business endeavor in the realm of browser scripting should be expressed in the form of a proposal for a next version of JavaScript, over at http://wiki.ecmascript.org, or else the oh-so-heavenly multilateral dimension of the interweb net will fragment and spiral down eventually collapsing into a black hole made of kittens”
(Hacker News, ibid.)