from JSC to all others: preciseTime global function ?

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 05:28:33 PDT 2012


Le 16/08/2012 14:02, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
> looks like the result would be the same obtained via preciseTime() * 
> 1000000 ... I just wonder why this is a W3C draft rather than a 
> ECMAScript one.
Same question stands for setTimeout/setInterval, setImmediate, 
WebWorkers or the crypto API to name a few others. Same question for the 
sync worker API I heard about only today (no implementation yet as far 
as I know).

Habits would be my best guess.
W3C is seen as the source on Earth of web standards, so a lot of people 
have the reflex to start a W3C/WHATWG draft rather than considering in 
which technology their problem would be best solved.
ECMA TC39 also (mistakenly) bought itself a bad reputation of being slow 
to standardize things in smoky rooms. I think it's changing slowly, but 
we'll keep seeing for some time drafts of features that should belong to 
the language level in W3C drafts.

I agree a preciseTime function would better belong in ECMAScript, but 
all in all, it does not really matter, as webdevs, we just need the 
features regardless of where they're spec'ed.

Eventually there will only be a unique "web platform" 
standard-body-neutral meta-spec anyway... I mean... right? eventually? 
please? :-)

Jokes aside, I really hope the concurrency strawman will be on track for 
ES.next.next (ES7) and all concurrency-related features in the rest of 
the web platform (event loop, timeouts, web workers...) can be specified 
on top of that.

David


More information about the es-discuss mailing list