The Paradox of Partial Parametricity
rossberg at google.com
Mon May 27 07:37:03 PDT 2013
On 27 May 2013 15:30, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> What the discussion at last week's TC39 meeting clarified for me is the
> - Promises are primarily a control-flow abstraction.
> - Sometimes, they are also used as a data-abstraction (i.e. as a container
> in their own right, wrapping an arbitrary payload).
> - All of the subtle problems discussed in these threads only start to arise
> when these two use cases of promises are being mixed, e.g. a
> promise-as-data-container being mistaken for a
> promise-as-control-abstraction. This rarely happens in application code, but
> may happen in generic library code.
Well, the gist of higher-order languages is that control flow
abstractions _are_ data. For example, that's the defining
characteristics of first-class functions. And while most functions
won't be used in a first-class manner (and most programmers probably
don't think about them that way), the ability to do so gives great
Futures/promises are an abstraction for first-class synchronisation.
For the same reason you sometimes want to store or pass back & forth
functions, you will sometimes want to store or pass promises. Not
being able to combine those abstractions freely and transparently
would arbitrarily limit their power, and practically demote promises
to second-class status.
More information about the es-discuss