The argument against rejecting to cancel seems like a stretch to me. It's completely fine if you view cancellation as a error condition, it allows you to recover from a cancellation if you want (swallow the error w catch) or to propagate it.
Hard disagree, TC39 has done great work over the last 10 years. To name a few:
- Async/await
- Rest/spread
- Async iterators
- WeakRefs
- Explicit Resource Management
- Temporal
It's decisions are much more well thought out than WHATWG standards. AbortSignal extending from EventTarget was a terrible call.
More good works from the last 10 years includes .at(), nullish chaining, BigInt etc.
But most of what you mentioned is closing in on 10 years in the standard (Async/Await is from 2017) meaning the bulk of the work done is from over 10 years ago.
The failure of AbortSignal is exactly the kind of failure TC39 has been doing in bulk lately. I have been following the proposal to add Observables to the language, which is a stage 1 proposal (and has been for over 10 years!!!). There were talks 5 years ago (!) to align the API with AbortSignal[1] which I think really exemplifies the inability for TC39 to reach a workable decision (at least as it operates now).
Another example I like to bring up are the failure of the pipeline operator[2], which was advanced to stage-2 four years ago and has been in hiatus ever since with very little work to show for it. After years of deliberation very controversal version of the operator with a massive community backlash. Before they advanced it it was one of the more popular proposals, now, not so much, and personally I sense any enthusiasm for this feature has pretty much vanished. In other words I think they took half a decade to make the obviously wrong decision, and have since given up.
From the failure of the pipeline operator followed a bunch of half-measures such as array grouping, and iterator helpers etc. which could have easily been implemented in userland libraries if the more functional version of the pipeline operator would have advanced.
The goal of web hosting is to provide low latency wide availability to many users.
AI in this context has a very different goal as a tool for individual users.
You wouldn't say that hosting instances of Photoshop on servers and charging for usage is a long term viable business would you? Even if current consumer computers struggled to run Photoshop.
I don't see an issue with the comparison, I don't think it is meant to be a 1 to 1 or anything, just an illustration of how consumers are overwhelmingly lazy.
I'd take issue with the statement that it is for the paranoid, but I guess it might be a defense mechanism because of course i am interested in local models. If my new workflow is going to be dependent on 3 companies, I'd prefer if there is a light at the end of the tunnel that breaks us free.
It's interesting to see so many people agree with this perspective when it comes to articles yet disagree when it comes to writing software.
Perhaps some form of Gell-Mann Amnesia, people are better at recognizing good articles than they are at recognizing good software. Combined with a vibe coding effect of never actually reading the source, and thus recognizing how bad it is.
Visual intelligence is a near meaningless term as it's almost entirely dependant on spatial intelligence. The visually impaired do have high spatial intelligence, I wouldn't be surprised if their spatial intelligence is actually higher on average than those without visual impairment.
reply