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

Re: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers

From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:33:13 +0200
Message-ID: <517AD679.1000305@gmail.com>
To: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
CC: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Le 26/04/2013 20:36, Rick Waldron a écrit :
> 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).
Which naturally leads to the question: why should platform promises be 
compatible with Promise/A+ and not jQuery "promises"? Because more 
libraries use Promise/A+? what about market share?

Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 19:33:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC