Mitranim · HackerTrans

Mitranim

no profile record

Submissions

Show HN: Cancelable async primitives for JavaScript

github.com

84 pointsby Mitranimقبل 9 سنوات97 comments

comments

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Added more examples and motivations for cancelation: https://github.com/Mitranim/posterus/blob/17c89694ecdce4633f...

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Added a readme section on Rx: https://github.com/Mitranim/posterus/blob/17c89694ecdce4633f...

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

It sounds like you're saying "explicit FSMs are strictly more powerful than promises/coroutines". Which is true. However, they're inherently difficult to program. In my view, the key to simplicity and correctness of programs is reducing the amount of states the program can possibly have. Isolating a piece of code into a blocking sequence seems like a fairly good way of doing it.

Not sure what you mean by "simple examples without error handling". Just like normal synchronous code, promises and coroutines use exceptions, which have the nice property of composability: one catch for several statements/promises. So error handling is the same as in synchronous code.

Now granted, there's a LOT of async/reactive problems where sequential abstractions like promises are irrelevant. GUI programming comes to mind, where you want the view to reflect some reactive state that changes in arbitrary order.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

That's what the mapping operators are for: `.mapResult` (same as `promise.then`), `.mapError` (same as `promise.catch`), or `.map`. The latter has an errback signature, like Node.js callbacks. They can also return new futures, transforming the result asynchronously. On top of that, error handling in promises/futures is much easier than in callbacks, as you can use one error handler for a chain of operations. Kinda like exceptions in synchronous code.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Glad it works for you!

Kind of answered in another subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14963524

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Interesting! Nice that the approach is known, and others are being discussed. I should check GTOR again.

Multicast cancelation based on refcounting doesn't look right to me. I explicitly avoided this in Posterus, sticking with exclusive ownership, what GTOR calls unicast (thanks for linking). The reason is that subscribers may come and go over time. I've seen, and written, code that caches a promise and reuses it many times. It may start with one consumer, lose it, be canceled, then another consumer comes and gets rejected. This just feels like a big footgun. In Posterus, multicast is explicit and opt-in (`.weak()` futures).

If we eventually standardise a solution, I'd like something with as few interfaces as possible. In a dynamic language, you don't have the luxury of creating a future that initialises into a task, returning a cancelation token. Too many types without static checking is just a footgun. This is part of why Posterus only has futures, why cancelation is provided in the future constructor and tied to the future itself, and why they're eager rather than lazy. Deviating from these constraints would introduce new types, increasing the footgun potential.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

This is news to me. Last time I tried RxJS, was unable to get a usable core less than 100 KB minified (I don't use gzip as a metric). Would consider 20-30 KB. Might want to look again.

Bundle size: a typical SPA imports multiple libraries, they import more libraries, and so on. It's not just Rx. I shouldn't have to explain how small things add up. Not caring about size is how it balloons up. We have to care about it in every library.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

For one operation, sure. It doesn't work when you want to compose multiple async operations, wait until all are finished, or race several of them to completion (e.g. useful operation competing against timeout). The purpose of promises/futures is this composability that allows you to get the order and timing of operations right.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

No disagreement here. Rx observables are strictly more powerful than promises/futures/streams.

But why start with the superset? I don't think it's good design. Consider the perspective of a language designer. You want to start with primitives that are as simple as possible while satisfying a vast number of real use cases. One-short async primitives are an important intermediary step towards observables, it shouldn't be skipped. Observables should be implemented in terms of these.

This layered design gets you a smaller cognitive cost of entry (promises are hard enough as it is!) and higher efficiency for the vast number of cases that don't need stream-like functionality.

On top of that, one-shot primitives are conceptually compatible with blocking expressions in coroutines such as async/await, whereas streams are not.

I don't get it when people shoot for fat primitives that do it all.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

This is news to me. Last time I looked into RxJS, I was unable to get a minimum useful core of less than 100 KB minified. Might want to look again, thanks!

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Correct. Most websites are better off with static HTML or server-side rendering and the least possible amount of JS. However some apps DO have to be fat. And don't forget about Node.js.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Doesn't sound as ergonomic as just returning a cancelation function in a future initialiser. Not seeing any other advantages, either. Am I missing some?

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Agreed, often it doesn't matter. Sometimes it DOES matter (high latency / low bandwidth / weak device), and then your program is slower than it could be. Why not pursue async primitives that let you manage resources properly at no downside?

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

We need a standard destructor interface instead of choosing a different word every time. Cancel, close, destroy, drop, unmount, they do the same thing. If we settled on ONE destructor interface, we could have automatic resource management. [1] I use `deinit` in all my libraries, as it seems to be the most neutral word appropriate for every case.

`arrive` — no particular reason. It's one "errback" method rather than two methods like `resolve/reject`, so it needs to have a neutral tone. Not too happy with it, better suggestions are welcome.

[1] Basic implementation of automatic resource management in JS: https://mitranim.com/espo/#-agent-value-

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Depends on use case. Sometimes you're surprisingly resource constrained.

People gave a few examples in this subtopic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14962684

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

People and programs change their minds all the time. A lot of behaviors we consider intuitive rely on some form of cancelation.

People gave a few examples in this subtopic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14962684

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

It would be race-free if `.then()` was invoked synchronously when evaluating the `await` expression, just like in normal Promise-based code. Currently in V8, there's a delay between evaluating `await` and actually calling `.then()`. If the promise uses a sufficiently nimble scheduler (i.e. based on `process.nextTick`), its unhandled rejection handler may run _in between_, throwing an exception, polluting stderr and possibly killing the process.

Example with Posterus:

  async function main() {
    try {
      await Future.fromError('fail')
    }
    catch (err) {
      console.error('caught:', err)
    }
  }

In Node, this actually produces an unhandled rejection because Posterus's scheduler uses `process.nextTick` and squeezes into this unnecessary delay. Doesn't happen if you `.catch()` manually or just use Posterus coroutines instead of interoping with async/await, but it highlights the incorrect implementation of async/await in the first place. (Or is the spec at fault?)

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Not familiar with cancelation tokens. Can you describe the approach?

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Not good enough. Each ongoing request eats machine resources and counts towards the browser request limit (6 or so). Cancelation must release the underlying resources, which XMLHttpRequest allows you to do. By being promise-based, fetch is fundamentally broken. It's a dead-on-arrival tool.

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Yes. Depends on client bandwidth and CPU, but it's significant. In fact, it's insanely high. Not caring about "just another 100 KB" is how people end up with 2-5 MB bundles that take seconds to download on weak networks and seconds to execute on weak devices.