Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal
isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 12:03:46 UTC 2017
I'll note that async functions had a similar thing going on, too. Most
third-party libraries had most issues taken care of, but what landed
in the spec was only a fraction of what most libraries provided. The
Observable proposal is turning out to be similar in this respect.
me at isiahmeadows.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Matthew Robb <matthewwrobb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Isiah I think there is a lot of value in the work you have done here. I
> think it would be useful to see this broken down in a way that makes solving
> the Promise cases in a way that would be forward compatible with Observers
> front and center. Right now it feels optimistically speculative because the
> approach is treating Promise and Observable as equal edges to the problem
> which may be true but today we have under facilitated Promise abstractions
> and no one is feeling any pain/loss around missing Observable support (yet).
> Does any of that make sense?
> - Matthew Robb
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
>> See: https://gist.github.com/isiahmeadows/ba298c7de6bbf1c36448f718be6a762b
>> TL;DR: I've created a proposal to enable modelling of parallelism and
>> non-linear control flow, to interoperate with the non-determinism of
>> Promises and Observables. I drew inspiration from non-von Neumann
>> paradigms in creating the primitive operations. I'm seeking feedback
>> for potential improvements and just overall feelings on the idea.
>> Obviously, this is blocked on the Observable proposal  getting
>> completed, and may need edited accordingly. And I've already proposed
>> a similar thing  in their repo, but not quite to this scale.
>> : https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable
>> : https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable/issues/141
>> Isiah Meadows
>> me at isiahmeadows.com
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss