Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Brendan Eich<bren...@mozilla.org> wrote:
All praise to Raf et al., my concern is that something synchronous, plus
event loop concurrency and setImmediate, would suffice to bootstrap the
rather more elaborate proposal on top of the simpler O.p.watch like
fundament.
This is not to say we shouldn't standardize higher-level APIs, and instead
push that off on library authors to write, and users to download. There's a
delicate balance here. We often screw up higher-level abstractions in
annoying ways, but perhaps that risk is worth taking.
What I'm really getting at is this: why not expose the synchronous primitive
and e.l.c. building blocks as well?
For the same reason we're killing MutationEvents, rather than just
promoting MutationObservers as a better alternative - synchronous
change notifications slow things down considerably,
Rgr that.
The idea I am promoting is opposed by not only janky browser code (all
browsers, some are better than others), but janky JS. Still, someone has
to write the sync stubs and defer the real programmable work via an
async API. Sounds like your argument is "let the experts [browser
vendors] do the sync stubs."
and they're *very*
prone to making the browser crashy. Get the slightest thing wrong in
your implementation, and suddenly the user is holding onto a null
pointer.
This you'll have to explain more. What pointer, to what point-ee? Why
nulled?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
