from JSC to all others: preciseTime global function ?

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 05:45:13 PDT 2012


fair enough :D

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120816/d0704aac/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list