happy to chalk up as a bad part and move on. Can't remove 'features' so meh.
-
-
Replying to @brianleroux @reybango
Stage 1 basically means "the committee is interested". There's nothing to remove, just make the argument.
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
I'm talking about Promises (which I'm sure you intuited).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
my stdlib is async + lodash. It is included in almost everything. Promises just feel messy and awkward.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
can you show me an example of a messy promise scenario that seems more elegant with async + lodash?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
not how it looks it's how they work. Swallowing errors. Incompatible impl conflicting. No stack traces. Etc
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
so one problem with standardizing promises is that incompatible impls are a problem?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
cute but no. The "standard" achieved adding a new incompatible target. I believe there is an xkcd about this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brianleroux @wycats and
performance also an indisputable issue. Ask around and you'll hear horror stories.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brianleroux @wycats and
anyhow let's save for f2f. You got your standard and I have the choice to not use them so yay.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
fine with me
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.