- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:43:36 -0800
- To: Marc Fawzi <marc.fawzi@gmail.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Michaela Merz <michaela.merz@hermetos.com>, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com>, George Calvert <george.calvert@loudthink.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Your message to which I replied is not cited accurately below by you. The text you wrote is here, in between """ lines: """ How about a thread-safe but lock-free version of the DOM based on something like Clojure's atom? So we can manipulate the DOM from web workers? With cursor support? How about immutable data structures for side-effect-free functional programming? How about .... Will think of more """ This message text is exactly what I wrote my reply against. It's useless; sorry, this happens, but don't make a habit of it, or most practitioners will unsubscribe to public-webapps. The DOM is a mutable single-threaded store, so there's no lock-free version possible. You'd have snapshots, with some cost in the snapshotting mechanism, at best. Then, you wouldn't be able to "manipulate" in any shared-state sense of that word, the DOM from workers. Sorry, but that's the way things are. Dropping words like immutable and lock-free doesn't help. That, plus a lot of attitude about deprecating sync XHR (on all sides; I'm not in favor of useless deprecation, myself -- good luck to browsers who "go first" on actually *removing* sync XHR support), adds up to noise in this list. What good purpose does noise to signal serve? /be > Marc Fawzi <mailto:marc.fawzi@gmail.com> > February 10, 2015 at 6:24 PM > What? a good cop bad cop routine? Jonas asks for a constructive > contribution or ideas for missing functionality in the web platform > and the inventor of JS honors me with a condescending response, as if ... > > What the hey! Mr. Eich! > > I guess this explains the origin of JS: a knee jerk reaction to > then-trendy ideas... > > That's not the way to go about all inclusive debate. > > Thank you. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > Brendan Eich <mailto:brendan@secure.meer.net> > February 10, 2015 at 5:44 PM > Please stop overloading public-webapps with idle chatter. > > React and things like it or based on it are going strong. Work there, > above the standards. De-jure standardization will follow, and we'll > all be better off for that order of work. > > /be > > > > Marc Fawzi <mailto:marc.fawzi@gmail.com> > February 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM > i agree that it's not a democratic process and even though some > W3C/TAG people will engage you every now and then the end result is > the browser vendors and even companies like Akamai have more say than > the users and developers. It's a classic top-down system, but at least > most debates and discussions happen over open-access mailing lists. > > I wish there was an app like Hacker News where browser vendors via > W3C, TAG, webapps etc engage users and developers in discussions and > use up/down votes to tell what matters most to users and developers. > > But design by committee is really hard and sub-optimal, and you need a > group of true and tried experts (open minded ones) to call the shots > on various technical aspects. > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 02:44:09 UTC