W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Futures

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:04:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAw+fyFHtTn2dM0_jHtum=kZuTxyCg04i7vcLBESfm8gg@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 22:04:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:32 UTC