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

RE: Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)

From: Ron Buckton <Ron.Buckton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:35:54 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Norbert Lindenberg" <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <B023BB2B3B1A194CAFDAB21C37FDDB00212AD69E@TK5EX14MBXC238.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
As someone who has been interested in Promises/Futures in JavaScript for a number of years, I'd like to throw in my $0.02 regarding a proposed API for Promises/Futures for thoughts:


My apologies in advance as the API definitions are written using TypeScript and not Web IDL. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@annevk.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Mark S. Miller
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org; Norbert Lindenberg; Markus Lanthaler; Douglas Crockford; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
>> The main argument I've heard for proceeding with w3c/DOMFutures 
>> rather than tc39/promises is that the DOM can't wait for tc39 to get 
>> around to standardizing promises in ES7. But we should have our eyes 
>> open to the consequences. As Crockford says (paraphrasing Knuth) 
>> "Premature standardization is the root of all evil." The likely 
>> result of DOMFuture proceeding in this way is that it will be wrong, 
>> ES7 will be stuck with it and mostly unable to fix it, and we will 
>> all be stuck with the consequences for a very very long time.
>> As with Object.observe, if the need for promises is that urgent, it 
>> needs to be on an accelerated track with the JavaScript context -- as 
>> it already de facto is at promises/A+. It should not be needlessly 
>> tied to the browser or to w3c.

I don't find the whole who owns what discussions very interesting to be honest. If it was up to me JavaScript would just be part of the W3C and we would not have to deal with that layer of distraction.

In any event, you can take the specification and improve on it elsewhere if you so desire. It is in the public domain for a reason.
You can also provide technical feedback as to what exactly is evil.
Saying "stop doing this" and implying you're somehow the superior forum to the other party is not helpful and has certainly not helped in the past.


Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 08:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:12 UTC