> actually the questions are not which is faster, why use my library or your library…etc, and i did’t invent "some better idea”, the question is why not check other languages first, when there’re nice solutions already there.
What is the definition of "check other languages"? Where do you get the courage to challenge every inventor that they have to learn everything you've learned before they making decisions? I don't think it's enough on you opinion, why don't you learn all the 20 languages I've learned before you start coding? Why don't you read all the books I've read before you start talking? You need to learn to understand others, rather than waving your narcissistick around. We don't need you to tell us the truth, of course, we should learn as much as we can before we making decisions. Even a child knows this truth, you are just wasting your time to talk about it. No one want to hear philosophies here, we want to hear the sound of real flying wheels. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:21 PM 韩冬 <[email protected]> wrote: > Glad to meet you here, actually the questions are not which is faster, why > use my library or your library…etc, and i did’t invent "some better idea”, > the question is why not check other languages first, when there’re nice > solutions already there. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Yad Smood <[email protected]> > *Subject: **Re: Re: Alternative to Promise* > *Date: *October 1, 2015 at 1:57:00 PM GMT+8 > *To: *[email protected] > > > To be frankly, I can't read your doc in just 5min, it's a little obscure > to me. Please don't stick on performance or internal complexity, it's not > the bottleneck. The internal implementation of a library may be complex, > but that's not what the end users care, most people use one thing before > full understand how it works. In your opinion, does it means everyone > should full understand the kernel of the linux before using it? If > everyone does it, most of them will find some part of the linux is as bad > as what you think about promise. If they take time to reinvent every so > called not good enough part of it, they won't even have time to enjoy a > movie, because the world is full of little flaws. > > You say your lib is much simpler than promise. Promises/A+ have only one > api: `then`, you have 4: `go`, `next`, `guard`, `freeze`. The purpose of > promise is let people work happily without knowing the internal state of > it, and it doesn't constrain the type of the error, and give users the > freedom. It's easy to see that you add more rules than promise. I can't say > your thoughts is bad or wrong, but what the points you say promise is bad > are just not good enough to persuade me. > > And I predict that as you learn more you will find your Action is still as > bad as promise, it's may 10% better, but it's still a bad way to handle the > real async world. I've seen a lot of libs like yours, and I created > something alike when developing my own promise lib, we need a mind blow > idea, not a little better idea. > > -- > ys > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
