AMP, in my opinion, was a step in the right direction. AMP is google's way of saying "you're all shit at developing on the web, use this very restricted way of developing a website and watch how fast it will go".
That's what we need. Don't put developers closer to the computer by giving them compiled languages. Move them as far away from the computer as you can. Languages should be moving in the direction of requiring the developer to do as little as possible. I need to import a package to make HTTP requests in Dart; every fucking app makes HTTP calls these days, how outdated is that? HTTP requests are baked in to javascript, I don't even need to think about what I need to import, I can spend mental cycles on real shit.
If you know you want to use Dart's HttpRequest class, you can just type it and a good editor will add the import for you. But people don't start out knowing what to type.
That's actually not true; the functionality is included in both dart:io and dart:html. package:http is just a cross-platform wrapper.
If more apps are just text and a few pictures, why are they running a full copy of the blink and v8 engines and not just using what's required for the job?
just like that time when iOS was suddenly hot, but there were no apps for it, because programmers hated Objective-C and weren't willing to learn it. So Apple released a new SDK and toolchain that allowed them to write apps in C++ instead.
oh wait.
Okay, all snark aside. Come on, guys. Isn't the fact that high tech is always new and innovative considered to be a good thing? So why is there always so much pressure to insist that every new thing has to be exactly like all the old things?
Learning Dart is not difficult. I did it myself, without even trying. I just pretended I already knew it, by following examples I found online. After a couple of weeks, my pretend-knowing turned into real-knowing.
Dart is just a programming language trying to get its killer app, which was dropped by Chrome team and gets political answers from Android team.
I am well aware, I have used Objective-C++ myself, but it's irrelevant. No, you cannot write iOS apps completely in C++. you still have to use Objective-C or Swift when dealing with UI components.
Further, Objective-C is not "just" a programming language, in this case. All of Apple's native frameworks are very strongly influenced by it. They allow you to do things that wouldn't be possible in other languages.
Obviously, it's possible to translate that experience to something else (see Swift), but it's an entirely different experience. Worse, in my opinion.
The same is true of Flutter and Dart. A lot of Flutter's architectural decisions are tied closely to the strengths (and weaknesses) of Dart. It would not make sense to switch to a different implementation language at this point.
While there are experiments in a Rust based UI and now Android.
I bet just like Brillo original plans, Flutter is on its way out.
Your answer means just a yes or "your question is irrelevant"? If the latter what I meant is a difference between Wayland and X. Wayland is a dumb pipe. X is mostly used as a dumb pipe, but it offers primitives to do the painting on the server side. Linux or Wayland does not have UI toolkit, but i.e. GNOME has.
No different than using the UI toolkit of choice, while the window manager takes care of window decorations, OS input events and what have you.
Just push the window contents into the scene graph using Fuchsia IPC.