W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Sync API for workers

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:54:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CABirCh_XrZZPV4tdC+SnSC1KcyqD7X=tvWBGiufO=irS-aWDNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
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

Glenn Maynard
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 19:54:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:38 UTC