[11] These are important advances, they really are, but imagining a solution to a problem is not the same as it being reliable.
-
-
Replying to @mikeal
[12] Web standards need to advance the web *as it is*. Once those advances are reliable we can build on top, but not before.
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
fwiw I completely agree that while I am a fan of both HTTP/2 and wasm, "we don't need X because HTTP/2" gets an eyeroll from me
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats
in general, "we don't need cause [thing we can't rely on yet]" is wrong :)
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mikeal
correct. on the flip side "let's not work on things that take 5 years to show effects" is myopic. exact effects tbd of course
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
new capabilities, more or less, are worth working on for the long-term.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
agreed, I just think the lower level those are the better, and that we should get them done before assuming they fix things.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
totally agree. Low level is better. That's why I wrote the Extensible Web Manifesto. Low-level first, let people move the web.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
it’s hard to stay low level when the current JS spec isn’t supported by browsers or node.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"current spec" is somewhat relative. the current state of the spec is what is widely implemented :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree. And ES2015 is getting close to 100% of current browsers. Still a couple years out of "usable for all apps"
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.