W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

RE: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers (was: Re: Futures)

From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:36:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHfnhfqSvHCMpJR-R1dn6BXKwex-f0aGb23b7T6bwHEuaAJ3PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
On Apr 26, 2013 1:03 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
wrote:
>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [jackalmage@gmail.com]
>
> > The need for this will decrease now that DOM Futures exist, and
libraries switch to using those (or a subclass of them) rather than rolling
bespoke promises.
>
> Last I heard, jQuery has committed to never switching their promises
implementation to one that works, for backward compatibility reasons. Rick
might know more about if thinking has changed recently, though.
>

Before I respond, let me make it clear that I have no intention of arguing
with anyone who chooses to follow up my comments. I don't agree with every
decision made by every committer to jQuery, and I'm not going to defend
decisions that I disagree with...

The libraries discussed in this and similar threads have the benefit of
very limited adoption, where breaking changes incur minimal costs. jQuery
doesn't have that luxury ;) [0] and therefore won't break backward
compatibility. I can assure you that we won't press for adoption of our
implementation as a standardódespite its more than adequate qualification
as a de facto standard[1] (like it or not).

Rick

[0] http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/jQuery
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 18:37:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC