W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: do not deprecate synchronous XMLHttpRequest

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:43:36 -0800
Message-ID: <54DAC1D8.3090503@secure.meer.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC