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 standard—despite 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