- From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:12:49 +0200
- To: adelespinasse@gmail.com, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- CC: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Le 09/08/2014 15:51, Alan deLespinasse a écrit : > Thanks. Apparently I did a lousy job of searching for previous > discussions. > > I just found this later, longer thread: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0965.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0678.html > (same thread, different year, so they're not linked) > > Has anything changed since that thread? It seems like the discussion > stalled in early 2012. But I'm glad to find that other people want the > same thing. This topic is on people minds [1]. My understanding of where we're at is that "ECMAScript 7" will bring syntax (async/await keywords [2]) that looks like sync syntax, but acts asynchronously. This should eliminate the need for web devs for blocking message passing primitives for workers. There is still a case for blocking primitives for projects that compile from other languages (C, C++, Python, Java, C#, etc.) to JS [3]. I personally hope it won't happen as it would be a step backwards. Blocking communication (cross-thread/process/computer) was a mistake. We need a culture shift. The browser and Node.js are a step in the right direction (they did not initiate it, but helped popularize it). David [1] https://twitter.com/briankardell/status/497843660680351744 [2] https://github.com/lukehoban/ecmascript-asyncawait#example [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=783190#c26
Received on Saturday, 9 August 2014 14:13:19 UTC