I've implemented Alex Future proposal in JS before he did as prototype and for tests.
However, Futures aren't used that much in node.js and spec'd like that are nice. However, I would not compare those two things. If you propose Streams after Futures where Futures are less common in node but Streams are one of the major things I think you should consider more the current used node approach. I don't see Future and Stream as different containers of the same thing with identical functionality, sorry. This is all I am saying. Regards On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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
