A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers (was: Re: Futures)

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Fri Apr 26 11:36:46 PDT 2013


On Apr 26, 2013 1:03 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
wrote:
>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [jackalmage at gmail.com]
>
> > The need for this will decrease now that DOM Futures exist, and
libraries switch to using those (or a subclass of them) rather than rolling
bespoke promises.
>
> Last I heard, jQuery has committed to never switching their promises
implementation to one that works, for backward compatibility reasons. Rick
might know more about if thinking has changed recently, though.
>

Before I respond, let me make it clear that I have no intention of arguing
with anyone who chooses to follow up my comments. I don't agree with every
decision made by every committer to jQuery, and I'm not going to defend
decisions that I disagree with...

The libraries discussed in this and similar threads have the benefit of
very limited adoption, where breaking changes incur minimal costs. jQuery
doesn't have that luxury ;) [0] and therefore won't break backward
compatibility. I can assure you that we won't press for adoption of our
implementation as a standard—despite its more than adequate qualification
as a de facto standard[1] (like it or not).

Rick

[0] http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/jQuery
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130426/cc67a548/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list