On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a nice effort but I agree with Nuno that fragmentation even on these > things already in production (despite the versioning) out there and already > working practically for the real-world isn't any good for the next future of > the JS community.
Fragmentation of concept is exactly what standardization helps to solve - the role of standards is to, well, standardize, especially after the market has explored the problem space already. Futures were long-overdue when Anne finally specced them, having been around in lots of languages including JS in many forms, and I think Streams are in a similar boat. > Also, JS has been kept general purpose enough, I would not try to influence > the language too much after DOM and W3C APIs and I thought this was also > same idea of TC39. I don't understand this sentence. It *sounds* like you're trying to say that Streams aren't general-purpose enough for JS to standardize, and should be left to DOM/W3C to do. Is this correct? If so, I disagree, and think that several other people on es-discuss do as well. (For example, Alex, Yedua, and Dave have been responding to me about this proposal in Twitter.) In general, a Stream is just another container type, and is as general as an Array or Set. Plenty of *specific* instances or subclasses of Streams are appropriate for individual DOM/etc specs to define, but we need to agree on the general concept first, and es-discuss folks seem well-suited to help develop this. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
