- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:54:02 -0500
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 19:54:31 UTC
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote: > Tooling isn't perfect for async debugging. It's being worked on. Yet it > hasn't prevented web devs from buiding (and debugging) event-based code. > Developers work in lots of bad environments and get stuff done anyway. That's no argument. As someone else said in another message, async isn't going away. There > won't be new blocking API for the main thread, so all the costs of learning > async programming will have to be paid. Debugging included. > I can only repeat what I already said: Understanding asynchronous programming isn't really the issue. I'm sure everyone in this discussion has an intuitive grasp of that. > You apparently want to argue against *all* sync APIs, but you should do > that separately, rather than singling out one sync API at random. > > As I said in a previous message, I'm arguing against the waste of > resources due to blocking APIs. > That's what I said: you're arguing against all sync APIs, not *this* API. I don't really want to spend more time on this tangent, since it's not about this API at all but a higher-level concept, and one we already have an answer to: synchronous APIs in workers are OK. Again, if you want to debate a basic premise of Web Workers, I recommend starting a separate thread. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 19:54:31 UTC