Talk:Futures and promises
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Future (programming) →Futures and promises (programming) — The scope of the article has been changed to reflect the fact that there is a technical distinction between "futures" and "promises" in several programming languages (although they are very similar and should still be covered by the same article).DavidHopwood01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
# '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey isnot a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.I added some material to clarify the definition of futures. After doing so, it seems to me that a similar definition of promises is badly needed since the promise concept seems highly ambiguous.--2ndMouse14:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "(programming)" disambiguation really needed?Futures and promises is also a redlink, and I suspect that somebody would just move the article there later, because we're not distinguishing futures and promises in programming from some other "futures and promises". -GTBacchus(talk)02:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't believe that the use of the definition of "Promise" is the correct term to be used in this article, but rather "expectations". Humans expect things that are better than was previously presented before, and this is the future of anything. Everything that has been invented and engineered was due to to the fact that people were confronted with a limited problem that involved the expectations of something better. To promise something would imply that a time machine would have already been invented, for example. It is more accurate to say that the belief in the invention of a time machine by now was a possibility, or even an expection, in that era. To promise this would guarantee that it was definitely a reality now. That is if a promise is like anything my loving girlfriend pulls off time and time again. I've had a few drinks in the past few hours, so I hope I make some sense. E-mail me if you have any questions, I'm sure I'd find it entertaining arguing with you. Bring it on nerds.cerulean_flame@yahoo.com
I don't think Burgess's work (Promise Theory) fits in here, and if it can't be merged in this article, the articles cannot *be* merged.Aaronchall (talk)22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any relation toFuture interface in the Java API?
Future as a one-element, one-shot, thread-safe result queue. It's useful for thread synchronization, but doesn't implement any of the techniques described in this article. --Piet Delport10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]FutureTask implements an "explicit future". The article now describes the difference between this and the implicit futures/promises implemented by most of the other languages mentioned. --DavidHopwood02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]Is this the same as Twisted'sdeferred object? If not, how does it differ?
Deferreds are similar to Java 1.5'sFuture, discussed above; the main difference is that they're usually used without threads, and have their results processed by a dual callback/errback chain instead of a polling/blocking caller. --Piet Delport23:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]I thinkC# TPL implements this concept.I wonder why it is ignored in the list of languagesimplementing the concept [Futures]
"Futures and delays are well defined in terms of their denotational semantics in the Actor model. These definitions do not require recourse to low level implementation concepts such as threads."
"a future is associated with a specific thread that computes its value. This computation may be started either eagerly when the future is created, or lazily when its value is first needed. A lazy future is similar to a thunk (in the sense of a delayed computation)."
In the first statement it is said the a future does not require do recourse to threads, however, in the second statement it is said that a future is associated with a specific thread. Shouldn't it be associated with a specific computation instead of a thread?—Precedingunsigned comment added by89.180.107.28 (talk)14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does Lucid really support futures in the sense meant here? It supports stream-based dataflow, but that's not the same thing. I don't know enough about the language to be sure, though. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk)04:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some differences in usage between "future" and "promise" are discussed below
Having trouble finding this discussion—Precedingunsigned comment added by1.153.45.43 (talk)19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion of futures versus promises inActor Model of Computation published in arXiv:1008.1459.70.137.165.34 (talk)20:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Obtaining the value of an explicit future can be called "stinging" or "forcing"." but does not explain what these mean or whether there is a difference.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGvanrossum (talk •contribs)18:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the most visible implementation of this concept is the one added tojQuery in version 1.5. There were other JavaScript implementations before it, but jQuery is getting more and more ubiquitous all the time, and of course JavaScript has been ubiquitous for years.
I had never come across this concept outside of jQuery despite my 22 years of programming. —Hippietrail (talk)16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under programming languages with built-in futures, Swift is listed, pointing to theApple programming language. I don't believe Swift includes futures, is this intended to point to thescripting language?Cjhenck (talk)20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding promises, sub sectionHistory says "... drafts of ECMAScript 7 ...". WhereasECMAScript, 6th Edition contains "Other new features ... collections (maps, sets and weak maps),promises, number and math enhancements ...".
Which one is correct? --Mortense (talk)09:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very difficult to read unless the reader already know what a future is. It should start out with a simple example that is easy to grasp for beginners.nielsle— Precedingunsigned comment added by89.23.239.99 (talk)11:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onFutures and promises. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)04:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onFutures and promises. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)05:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]