First crack at a Streams proposal

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at
Mon Apr 15 14:14:14 PDT 2013

of course, that is just my opinion.
I am looking forward to read others ... meanwhile, in texas JS, a talk
about node streams:


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at> wrote:

> 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. <jackalmage at>wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammarchi at> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list