A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers (was: Re: Futures)
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>
> 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
> 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 ;)  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 (like it or not).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss