> > I think I will just stick to promises. > I can't help but feel that they are more uniform, cleaner and how ECMAScript > is intending async control flow in the future. > > I did not jump in to convince you to use galaxy or streamline (I got bored > with this kind of exercise), rather to develop Alex' point that "you *can* > have coroutines without promises". Promises don't really cut it when it comes > to solving the "sync-style coding" challenge. What cuts it is generators > (fibers and preprocessors too).
Exactly: Promises give you something else, without being ‘sync’-style. They let you manipulate as-yet-unavailable values relatively transparently. Actual order of operations can be factored out instead of made explicit; what’s left is order of dependency, rather than order of operations.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
