fugalh

4 ms·

1.
by fugalh 10y ago
When I name things I look for a word that doesn't get drowned out by unrelated hits in search engines, and has some kind of link to what the library does. Straightforward names are great when they are obvious, easy to remember, and not
2.
by fugalh 11y ago
Indeed, any good intro to Rx points this out: Observable is the plural of future/promise. When people are trying to do fancy streaming stuff with futures and come to me for help, I generally recommend they do the streaming with Rx inst
3.
by fugalh 11y ago
Yes, templates are expensive at compile time (memory and time both). folly/futures only depends on a few pieces of folly/, you may find that you can use the futures headers just fine. If building libfolly is the showstopper, you m
4.
by fugalh 11y ago
Scala also takes the same way C++11 does, and to my mind it makes more sense this way. So from my perspective Javascript is the backward duck here. I agree it would be nice if we could all just settle on something
5.
by fugalh 11y ago
Yes, the two terms are unfortunately both synonymous (comparing different implementations of the pattern in different languages), and usually have specific meanings in the context of any given implementation. Often, as here, Promise is the
6.
by fugalh 11y ago
It is along the same lines as boost's futures implementation. We have a different mechanism for expressing thread management, born out of trial and error and Facebook engineer feedback. At the time we set out to write this boost future