First crack at a Streams proposal
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 14:41:23 PDT 2013
well, if the purpose is different and you need to describe streams as
"observables" or "signals" then I would suggest to change naming convention
so nobody will ever be confused again.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> I think a large part of the confusion here is that when Tab says
> "streams" he really means "observables" or "signals." As you point out,
> this would be completely inappropriate as a stream API, as it does indeed
> ignore many of the lessons Node learned. Surprisingly, it doesn't seem to
> draw on any of the existing observable or signal APIs that I've seen
> either, instead being some entirely new hybrid of promises and the nascent
> monads-in-JS movement.
> From: Nuno Job <nunojobpinto at gmail.com>
> Sent: 4/15/2013 15:43
> To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
> Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> Subject: Re: First crack at a Streams proposal
> Node.js has multiple iterations on Streams, and those were made in the
> hope to make them better. It's hard and has been an ongoing effort to make
> it perfect.
> That said it's quite surprising to see smart folks come to such
> different conclusions. Perhaps it's the lack of real life implementations
> and how these things affect real life programs and companies that use
> node core. And some of these concepts are fairly advanced, when in node it
> took years to get get the basics right (the rest was left to npm and
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss