- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:01:48 -0700
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's also important to note that node.js started out with futures as a >> design paradigm and moved away from that design for a number of very >> good reasons: >> >> http://www.futurealoof.com/posts/broken-promises.html > > From what I understand, Node shipped with a crappy model of promises. > Note that there are *at least* four distinct promise models that have > been seriously proposed and used in the web. Futures is based on the > one that "won" - Promises/A+. Note that a lot of web-based JS > frameworks *have* adopted promises in the last several years. Helpfully, Manu found documentation for Node's original built-in promises: http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/node-0.1.29-api.html#_tt_events_promise_tt All I can say is, *no wonder* they dropped their promises in favor of a unified callback API! This is a *terrible* implementation of the promises idea, with basically *none* of the benefits gained by modern good versions like Promises/A+ and DOM Futures. So I can say pretty confidently that the fact that Node abandoned promises is worth approximately *zero* weight in any argument for/against adding promises. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 17:02:35 UTC