- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:04:12 -0700
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > Another reason for choosing Futures over an alternative is that they are > powerful or technologically superior. This is true when comparing them to > the simplistic node.js callback style, but I think it's more murky when > comparing them to other various async code-flow libraries out there -- > especially considering that Promise-based libraries have been around for a > while and are not winning the competition. Again, while it *is* possible to compare Futures with async code-flow libraries *within the context of Node*, it's not valid when talking about web APIs, because the ecosystem of async code-flow libraries does not exist, and can not exist until a bunch of APIs convert into a common callback pattern. The web is already screwed, so Node experience with a non-screwed callback ecosystem isn't very useful for talking about web APIs. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 22:04:59 UTC