Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 21:29:39 UTC 2017


I presented it as a holistic concept, but I ensured it still could be added
piecemeal. When I have time, I'll add that to my gist, how it can be taken
and implemented piecemeal.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, 07:18 Matthew Robb <matthewwrobb at gmail.com> wrote:

> One major difference I can see is that the earliest async/await proposals
> included `async *` which was eventually dropped for no practical reason
> other than it seemed to add bloat to a spec that AT THE TIME looked like it
> would be hard to push through the process. History tells a different story
> for async/await and it may be better that it was actually left out
> initially it's hard to say. What I can say is the use case has been a part
> of the discussion from the very beginning for awaiting a list of things.
>
> There really are two phases to your spec. A subset that can apply
> immediately to the existing promise-based abstraction and a larger
> extension of that which could apply to a wider range of async models such
> as Observable. I think both are well represented but it would be helpful to
> see them explicitly broken down into those two distinct sets.
>
>
> - Matthew Robb
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
> -----
>
> Isiah Meadows
> 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>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 [1] getting
> >> completed, and may need edited accordingly. And I've already proposed
> >> a similar thing [2] in their repo, but not quite to this scale.
> >>
> >> [1]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable
> >> [2]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable/issues/141
> >>
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Isiah Meadows
> >> me at isiahmeadows.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170307/5ad42339/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list