[email protected] wrote:
#3 is the only point I concede as being even possibly concrete
Then you get a *plonk*, or at least a demeric, for ignoring the very
concrete problem #2: combinators such as .all do not use .chain, they
use .then. Also for ignoring #1 -- it doesn't matter that .then is
compound, complex, multifarious -- it's a de-facto standard. And it is
what combinators (#2) in the standard use, so you can't ignore the
committee bloat or unioning cost.
Imagine we simplified to do just .chain and .cast, and combinators
called .chain. We'd be breaking compatibility with extant promises
libraries, and de-jure future-banning .then/.resolve as an API
alternative. The existing promises library users would be faced with a
porting problem whose size is hard to estimate, since they are relying
on assimilation and unwrapping happening behind the scenes.
Promises *happened*. They are real. That's why I tweeted about #realism.
Wanting something value-ish, featureless, monadic, is a good goal for a
differently named abstraction built on value objects. Promises are not
that abstraction. Do the work to show the win, under a new name
(Future?). Until then this is selective arguing and cheap talk.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
