Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)
Ron.Buckton at microsoft.com
Wed Apr 17 11:35:54 PDT 2013
My apologies in advance as the API definitions are written using TypeScript and not Web IDL.
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk at annevk.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Mark S. Miller
Cc: public-script-coord at w3.org; Norbert Lindenberg; Markus Lanthaler; Douglas Crockford; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>> The main argument I've heard for proceeding with w3c/DOMFutures
>> rather than tc39/promises is that the DOM can't wait for tc39 to get
>> around to standardizing promises in ES7. But we should have our eyes
>> open to the consequences. As Crockford says (paraphrasing Knuth)
>> "Premature standardization is the root of all evil." The likely
>> result of DOMFuture proceeding in this way is that it will be wrong,
>> ES7 will be stuck with it and mostly unable to fix it, and we will
>> all be stuck with the consequences for a very very long time.
>> As with Object.observe, if the need for promises is that urgent, it
>> it already de facto is at promises/A+. It should not be needlessly
>> tied to the browser or to w3c.
In any event, you can take the specification and improve on it elsewhere if you so desire. It is in the public domain for a reason.
You can also provide technical feedback as to what exactly is evil.
Saying "stop doing this" and implying you're somehow the superior forum to the other party is not helpful and has certainly not helped in the past.
More information about the es-discuss