First crack at a Streams proposal

Sean Silva silvas at purdue.edu
Sat Apr 20 16:13:23 PDT 2013


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Isaac Schlueter <i at izs.me> wrote:
> > I'm not seeing what in this proposal can't be implemented in
> > JavaScript as it is today.  Is there an implementation of this
> > somewhere?  Are there any programs that use these streams?
>
> This is a fully-general counter-argument against literally everything
> that doesn't require new primitives, and so is useless as an actual
> argument.  It would damn Promises/Futures, Sets, Maps, and a number of
> other new things.


I'm pretty sure there is no way to implement Maps with arbitrary keys in
current JS.
As for Promises/Futures, I think that the argument is equally forceful
against them as it is to the proposals in this thread.



>  The valid version of this argument is about
> *usefulness*, and there being unable to implement in current JS is a
> supporting reason to add something, but not the only reason.
>

My understanding from you wording is that you want this to be standardized
into ECMAScript. That means that this change would be shipped in billions
of devices and require implementation and testing effort across the globe
and across every vendor. Are you sure it's utility would not be diminished
if you just put a nice working implementation on github and register it
with the various package managers that make installing and using such code
dead simple? That would be a huge win since people would be able to start
using it immediately.

Concretely, compared to putting it on github and registering with package
managers, what percentage usefulness increase do you expect to see by
having this standardized?

I think you're completely right, "The valid version of this argument is
about *usefulness*", except it's about usefulness of standardizing it
compared to other ways of making the code available, and not about the
intrinsic usefulness of the API (which, I'll point out, does not appear to
be convincingly established).

-- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130420/85b76ac4/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list