Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Yes, I understand. Thanks for being polite! ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Hi, Micheal, you sound like one of the foolish virgins that forgot to bring oil for their lamps. You know that you need to do more research and that you lack conceptual understanding. Now, because you've brought to little, your asking for what you failed to bring. No, go rather to them that sell,

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Till Schneidereit wrote: > (Also FTR, I don't think the discussions you're starting here and > the way you're going about it and ignoring feedback people give > you is very productive, but that's all I'm going to say on the > matter.)

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:05 PM, kai zhu wrote: > > many of theses issues wouldn't exist if tc39 had responsibly > gatekeeped es6 with a more modest feature-set of languages-changes They did. You just disagree with the decisions that were taken, unlike the vast, overwhelming

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Lewis wrote: > I don't want to break the rules and get removed from the list. But it > seems this list is powered by mozilla, and not "owned" by TC39 anyway. And > because there are no official topic rules, I think that discussing aspects

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Wow dude... Again, you're trying to pick a fight. I'm not "publicly shaming" anyone, that's ridiculous. All I have to say is, just watch. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote: > I don't represent TC39, and I don't like adding so much noise to this > list,

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Thank you for this, Jeremy. -Terence On 11/8/2017 10:00 AM, Jeremy Martin wrote: Michael, You are not alone in your frustrations. Many of your points are valid, have been voiced before, and will no doubt be voiced again. No one on here is unsympathetic to this, and many members of TC39, as

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

I don't represent TC39, and I don't like adding so much noise to this list, so this will be my last reply on the topic. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with what you want, but you're barking up the wrong tree to get it: > This (not concerning themselves with the end users experience) is a >

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Michael, >> >> >> Lambasting TC39 for not formalizing and centralizing these educational >> resources -- a task that exists far outside of their charter -- is not >> productive. > > > This (not concerning themselves with the end users experience) is a mistake > (an opinion). The JavaScript

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

criticizing tc39 for the current problems in frontend-development is fair-game. many of theses issues wouldn't exist if tc39 had responsibly gatekeeped es6 with a more modest feature-set of languages-changes, instead of creating an entirely new language. On 11/9/17, Michael Lewis

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Jeremy Martin wrote: > Michael, > > You are not alone in your frustrations. Many of your points are valid, > have been voiced before, and will no doubt be voiced again. No one on here > is unsympathetic to this, and many members of TC39, as

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Michael, You are not alone in your frustrations. Many of your points are valid, have been voiced before, and will no doubt be voiced again. No one on here is unsympathetic to this, and many members of TC39, as well as other community members, dedicate significant amounts of time, freely, to

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

I did help you. I answered your question: I said async functions are preferable over all the other alternatives. And I said others can weigh in with their own perspective if they disagree. Of course TC39 justifies their decisions: but it's left up to us, as the developers, to find out what the

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

I was hoping the last message was a one-off. As it now clearly isn't... Michael, along with all the other feedback you've received, please DO NOT swear on this list. This is a professional environment. It's entirely possible to express oneself clearly (and, er, concisely) without resorting to

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

How difficult is it for a web developer to make a website? What if everyone in this mailing list shared their personal websites, and we ranked them? Not that mine is great, but at least I'm admitting that it's really fucking hard to make a simple website... I know a *lot *of web developers that

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

So, the group that designs the language that the world uses for building web apps, cannot provide insight as to why they do what they do? Smells like bullshit. Maybe you can expand on that part further? Check this out. It seems the ECMA/TC39 group

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Hi Michael! TC39 is rightfully reluctant to offer usage advice. People should develop their best practices from experiences and the use cases they're involved in. For me, to answer your question, since I'm not a TC39 member, it's async functions all the way, and ditch observables, raw promises,

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Hi Felipe, I read and generally understand your points (while I don't fully understand all the new async syntax and best practices ). You agree that there's a lot to learn, but nobody

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Hi. Michael, the JavaScript (and Web in general) communities are very open and always queen to help. I just think you hit the wrong mailing list to discuss all that. For new comers, indeed, there is plenty to work on, practice and study. But keep in mind that many of those features came from

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Making things simpler, clearer, and more visual has obvious benefits. I think I was very clear from the beginning that this was *NOT* a concrete proposal. And I've seen many posts on here that are not. From now on, I'll title my posts to more clearly indicate that *reading is abstract,

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

:( Apologies, I didn't intend to reply-all on that. :\ I'll keep this one public too, since I just subjected everyone to the previous email as well. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote: > Michael, > > You've spent a considerable amount of time putting your

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Michael, You've spent a considerable amount of time putting your thoughts into writing, so I don't intend to be dismissive of them, but this doesn't seem to be the right distribution channel for whatever you're getting at. As it stands, you've thrown quite a few questions out that don't seem to

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Oh, you're right :-\ empty async functions return a promise, interesting... On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Michael Lewis wrote: > > async functions create a new promise for you upon every invocation, > which you resolve via `await`, but that's all invisible in the background >

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

> async functions create a new promise for you upon every invocation, which you resolve via `await`, but that's all invisible in the background Is that correct? I thought async functions simply await promises. `await something()` works because something() returns a promise. But is there a

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Correct, `for..of` instead of `forEach` On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 at 01:21 Logan Smyth wrote: > A nit, but that would have to be `for (const move of moves) await > doMoveAsync()` > since the `forEach` callback is a normal function. > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Naveen

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

A nit, but that would have to be `for (const move of moves) await doMoveAsync()` since the `forEach` callback is a normal function. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Naveen Chawla wrote: > ... that should be `await doMoveAsync()` > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 at 01:16 Naveen

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

... that should be `await doMoveAsync()` On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 at 01:16 Naveen Chawla wrote: > async functions create a new promise for you upon every invocation, which > you resolve via `await`, but that's all invisible in the background. It's > basically: > > async

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

async functions create a new promise for you upon every invocation, which you resolve via `await`, but that's all invisible in the background. It's basically: async function doMovesAsync(){ moves.forEach( move=>{ doMoveAsync(); //another async function } );

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

Also, if you've made it this far, I think it's worth mentioning that these async strings are basically all you need for a realtime file system. File("newFile.ext").append(File("fileA"), File("fileB"), ...).transpile().save(); // --> automatically watches, all inputs (fileA, fileB, etc), caches

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

I'm not experienced in async/await enough to know what "using async functions to process [streams]" would look like. You would have to create a new promise for every iteration? Even if performance isn't an issue, it just doesn't make sense to me. It's like, you could use `obj.value = "my

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

For me the future is async functions (the present actually). I asked a question about possible support for async streams / observables here: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/stream-async-await and I realized that my use case was much better served by just using async functions to process each input

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

The email wasn't about my kids, and you don't have to read it (duh). If your time is so valuable, maybe you shouldn't be picking fights with rambling parents. Where is the list of approved topics? On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Bob Myers wrote: > I'm confused. You don't have

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

I'm confused. You don't have time to read "The General Theory of Reactivity", yet (1) you have time to write this long, rambling email about your kids, and (2) expect people on this mailing list to spend their valuable time reading it? Please stay on topic for the list. Bob On Tue, Nov 7, 2017

Re: Question of the Day: What about all this asynchrony?

*Side note about loading/defining Modules *(somewhat related to asynchrony) I've been writing a Module loader that's a hybrid between require.js and webpack. And in doing so, the obvious end-game solution for modules is a *GUI*. A GUI to help you scaffold the folders, files, import statements,