asynchrony

Js really just that it supports asynchrony? I'm sure Go also has that and Erlang has existed for a long time.

Like asynchrony, I don't understand this argument at all. You can play however you want in chess.

Leveraging Twitter and allowing a blend of synchrony or asynchrony might work better. Good luck!

> I agree that there is something in combing asynchrony and ephemerality, but come on. Nothing run by the likes of Evan Spiegel is going to threaten Facebook.

I agree that there is something in combing asynchrony and ephemerality, but come on. Nothing run by the likes of Evan Spiegel is going to threaten Facebook.

> Callbacks will remain the de facto way to implement > asynchrony. Generators and Promises are interesting and > will remain a userland option."

The underlying asynchrony remains exactly the same. They just make it easier to avoid an indentation avalanche, or callback spaghetti.

> most are just overwhelmed with functional programming and event loops/call backs/asynchrony because they were just used to something different. Javascript allows you to have a simple form of anonymous function.

Go exists because C++ was too big - for its purpose, of web server development, you wanted native performance with natural asynchrony and multi processing. It still doesn't have generics because it is pretty much a domain language, I think.

I would probably dispute the asynchrony/performance one, though. C# async is very efficient -- a lot more efficient than many other eventing frameworks in many other languages.

In other cases you can still use events and asynchrony but you should do it in a framework that is inherently multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple processors/cores.

Even if your dataflow application does not need synchronization, then you need to be able to reason about the fact that you have inherent asynchrony when you go to look at your results. That is, you may see this item and that item paired together - is that a valid result?

My point is hardly anyone uses promises for fine grained asynchrony because of the costs and debugging indirection. My point is that you can do both coarse/fine grained asynchrony at little cost and without obfuscating your errors during development or in production if you move beyond promises.

I'd like to see TCO in Javascript, but before that I'd like to see some less headache-inducing method of dealing with lots of asynchrony. I'm not at all sure the method described in the linked article would work as well as said article makes it sound, but I'm definitely in favor of seeing people much smarter than I am argue this one to a finish and then implement the last proposal standing.

My understanding was that the Xlib protocol's asynchrony was hardly wonderful, and made syncing with vblank and pixel-perfect frames difficult, which motivates its abandonment in favor of the synchronous, local-host-only Wayland protocol.