2012/11/14 Andreas Rossberg <rossb...@google.com> > On 14 November 2012 18:41, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: > > Either way, Scala's > > unfortunate choice clearly violates this history in a confusing manner, > so > > I'd classify it as #4. Let's not repeat Scala's mistake. > > Just to reiterate, it's not just Scala, but more importantly also C++, > Java (to some extent), and several less mainstream languages. That is, > this use of terminology has quite a bit of history of its own, dating > back almost as far as E (and having developed more or less > independently).
I still think futures connote strongly with blocking synchronization. If we'd add a concept named "future" to JS on the grounds that the same concept exists in Java and C++, developers will reasonably expect a blocking future.get() method. In my experience, the term "promise" is much more associated with non-blocking synchronization through .then or .when callback chaining (although ironically the name derives from Argus, which featured blocking promises. Argh! :-) Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
