On 18 Dec 2013 18:20, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Alex can I ask you if there's any specific deadline you are talking about?

Promises aren't important. They are a tool. And the design space is
*clearly* overconstrained. Anyone paying attention can see that. We should
have given rough consensus blessing in april and not have deprived
ourselves of promises as a tool in API design for the last 7 months as a
result.

> Your answer sounds like "rushed is better than nothing" ... which usually
might/kinda works for web-agencies but not for "would like to be corporate
ready/oriented specifications", right ?

No. Not with overconstrained API that is clearly a bridge to syntax, not a
final destination.

This committee has committed half a year of lost opportunities *for the
entire platform* on the basis of pathological standards behaviour. This
group has poor facility with the costs because we are far too disconnected
from our users.

And no. I am not happy.

> Sorry but I think that should be slightly ;-) more elaborated, if
possible, thanks.
>
> Quick One for Ѓорѓи : markdown is awesome but in this very specific ML I
find easier to read `**notPromise**` when bold is meant, than
`__notPromise__` ... you know, `__proto__` and sh...tuff ^_^ unless you
didn't really mean `__notPromise__` where in such case I think the `tick`
should do it - sorry for the Off Topic, I was just reading through
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131218/fb55d992/attachment.html>

On 18 Dec 2013 18:20, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex can I ask you if there's any specific deadline you are talking about?

Promises aren't important. They are a tool. And the design space is
*clearly* overconstrained. Anyone paying attention can see that. We should
have given rough consensus blessing in april and not have deprived
ourselves of promises as a tool in API design for the last 7 months as a
result.

> Your answer sounds like "rushed is better than nothing" ... which usually might/kinda works for web-agencies but not for "would like to be corporate ready/oriented specifications", right ?

No. Not with overconstrained API that is clearly a bridge to syntax, not a
final destination.

This committee has committed half a year of lost opportunities *for the
entire platform* on the basis of pathological standards behaviour. This
group has poor facility with the costs because we are far too disconnected
from our users.

And no. I am not happy.

On 18 Dec 2013 18:20, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex can I ask you if there's any specific deadline you are talking about?

Promises aren't important. They are a tool. And the design space is
*clearly* overconstrained. Anyone paying attention can see that. We should
have given rough consensus blessing in april and not have deprived
ourselves of promises as a tool in API design for the last 7 months as a
result.

> Your answer sounds like "rushed is better than nothing" ... which usually

might/kinda works for web-agencies but not for "would like to be corporate
ready/oriented specifications", right ?

No. Not with overconstrained API that is clearly a bridge to syntax, not a
final destination.

This committee has committed half a year of lost opportunities *for the
entire platform* on the basis of pathological standards behaviour. This
group has poor facility with the costs because we are far too disconnected
from our users.

And no. I am not happy.