On 14 November 2012 20:37, Tom Van Cutsem <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I'd say that different notions of "concurrency" in respective languages naturally affect the details of the future _interface_, but I don't see this as a fundamental difference in the concept _as such_. Somewhat like weak maps not having iteration, but still being maps. The future interface in languages with threads is a superset of what we can provide for JS. In those languages, you (can) have 'then' and 'wait'. Obviously, in a language without threads and only asynchronous "concurrency", the latter operation is not available. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
