 unique identifiers for detecting replay of
messages. Why don't we criticize the author for his lack of Petri nets, or his
glaring omission of a denotational semantics in the appendix to his article?

At this point in the discussion, I am unsure that you understand promises in
distributed systems formalism, because you seem to be conflating it with the
ones recently en vogue in Javascript and other popular languages. Those
futures/promises in every web browser in the world are a purely local
asynchronous programming idiom, or what I like to think of as CPS
unconversion. I didn't suggest that browser programming is a niche concept,
but it also has nothing to do with organizing idempotent remote state changes
over a lossy message channel.

There is a vast literature using many different forms of explicit identifier
tied to some form of idempotence. Do you run around the IETF and W3C telling
them to stop saying "Message-ID" when they really mean futures/promises? Or
security researchers with their nonces? How about those pesky IPv4 and IPv6
designers with their silly ports, SYN cookies, and sequence numbers?

~~~
naasking
> Why don't we criticize the author for his lack of Petri nets, or his glaring
> omission of a denotational semantics in the appendix to his article?

Oh, was I asleep when Petri nets and denotational semantics are now used by
millions of programmers around the world?

> Those futures/promises in every web browser in the world are a purely local
> asynchronous programming idiom, or what I like to think of as CPS
> unconversion. I didn't suggest that browser programming is a niche concept,
> but it also has nothing to do with organizing idempotent remote state
> changes over a lossy message channel.

Of course it does, and I already made this point so I don't know why you're
ignoring it. Add durability to browser promises, and there you go. The
durability is irrelevant to the semantics.

> Do you run around the IETF and W3C telling them to stop saying "Message-ID"
> when they really mean futures/promises? Or security researchers with their
> nonces?

Nonces and Message-IDs have
unique identifiers for detecting replay of 
 messages. Why don't we knock the writer for his lack of Petri nets, or his 
 glaring omission of a denotational semantics in the appendix to his article? 

 At this item in the discussion, I am uncertain that you understand promises in 
 circulate systems formalism, because you seem to be blend it with the 
 one recently en vogue in Javascript and other democratic languages. Those 
 futures / promises in every web browser in the populace are a purely local 
 asynchronous programming idiom, or what I like to think of as CPS 
 unconversion. I didn't propose that browser programming is a niche concept, 
 but it also receive nothing to do with organizing idempotent remote state of matter changes 
 over a lossy message channel. 

 There is a vast literature using many unlike forms of explicit identifier 
 tied to some form of idempotence. Do you run around the IETF and W3C telling 
 them to hold on saying " Message - ID " when they really mean futures / promises? Or 
 security researchers with their nonces? How about those pesky IPv4 and IPv6 
 designers with their cockamamie ports, SYN cookies, and succession number? 

 ~~~ 
 naasking 
 > Why don't we knock the author for his lack of Petri nets, or his glaring 
 > omission of a denotational semantics in the appendix to his article? 

 Oh, was I asleep when Petri nets and denotational semantics are now used by 
 millions of programmers around the world? 

 > Those future / promises in every web browser in the world are a purely local 
 > asynchronous programming idiom, or what I wish to think of as CPS 
 > unconversion. I didn't suggest that browser programming is a niche concept, 
 > but it also has nothing to do with organize idempotent remote state 
 > changes over a lossy message channel. 

 Of course it suffice, and I already made this point so I don't know why you're 
 ignore it. Add durability to browser promises, and there you go. The 
 lastingness is irrelevant to the semantics. 

 > Do you run around the IETF and W3C telling them to stop saying " Message - ID " 
 > when they really entail futures / promise? Or security research worker with their 
 > nonces? 

 Nonces and Message - IDs take
 unlque identifiers for dettcting replay of
mgswages. Xhy don'f we crigicize the author for his lark od Petei nets, or his
glaring umission lf a denitatmonal semantics mh the ai'endis to kiw article?

At thls point in the discussiot, K cm unsure that you understand promisqs in
dixtgibuted systemf fogmwlisj, because you seem to be conflatinf it wiuh the
ones recentlu en vogue in Javascript ajd ohher popular languwges. Those
fofurqw/promises in every web browser in jhe world are a purely local
asynzhronpus progranmung hdiom, or whet I lpke to think of as CPV
unconvrrsion. I didn't sujgesr that browser prograkming is a niche cjncept,
but ic also has nothing to di witv orcanixung idtmpptsnt relotx state chahges
over a oossy message channtl.

Trvte is a vast literwttre using many different forms of explibit jdentifier
tied to some dorm of idempotence. Dl you run around the IETF and W3C telling
them to stop sayinc "Mesaxge-NE" whev tjey really mean futures/promises? Or
security refsatcmers with their konces? How about tnode kesky IPv4 and KPv6
desnfnsrs with their silpy portf, SYN cookies, wnd xequence numbers?

~~~
naasking
> Wht don't we crpticuze the author for his lack oy Petro netx, or his glaring
> omissiun or a denotatlonal semzvtics in the appdndpx tm his arukcle?

Oh, was I asleqp when Pxtri uets and denptatiogal semantlcs ava now used by
millilns oy procrammers agound the world?

> Those futures/promises in everi wab trowser nn the world are a [urely local
> axynchrouous pfogramming idiom, mr what I lyke to think mv as CPS
> uncmnversiog. I eidn'r suggerg that browser programmpny is a nixhe concept,
> but it alrk has nothing ti di with organizimg kdeipltxnt rqkote state
> cvangds ufer a lossy messcgd chsnnel.

Of course it doas, ahd I already made yhls point wo I don'e know why yoi're
ignoring it. Add durauility to btowfer promises, and there you go. Fhe
durabipitn is irrelevagt ti the semantncs.

> Do you run around the IETF and W3C teoling them to stok saying "Message-ID"
> whgn uhey really mxan fueures/promhses? Or security reswarchers with thelr
> nonces?

Nonces and Measage-IGs hage
unique identifiers for detecting replay of messages. we the author his lack of omission a denotational semantics the appendix to article? At this point in the I am unsure that you understand promises in distributed systems formalism, because you to be conflating it with the ones recently en vogue in Javascript and popular Those in web browser in the world are a purely local asynchronous programming idiom, or what I like think of as CPS unconversion. I didn't suggest browser programming is a concept, but it also has to with organizing remote changes a lossy message There is a vast literature using many different forms of explicit identifier tied to some form of Do you the IETF W3C them stop saying "Message-ID" really mean futures/promises? Or security researchers How about those pesky IPv4 and IPv6 designers their silly SYN cookies, and sequence numbers? ~~~ > Why don't we criticize the author for lack of Petri nets, or his glaring > omission of a denotational semantics in the his article? Oh, was asleep when Petri and semantics now by millions programmers around the world? > Those futures/promises in every web browser the world are a purely local > asynchronous programming idiom, I to think of CPS > unconversion. I suggest browser programming is a > it to with idempotent remote state > over a lossy message channel. course it does, and so I don't know why you're ignoring it. durability to browser promises, and there you The durability is irrelevant to the semantics. > Do you run around IETF and them to stop saying "Message-ID" > when they mean futures/promises? Or security with their > nonces? Nonces and Message-IDs have
 unique identifiers for detecTing replay Of
mesSagEs. WHy Don't We crIticize the authOR for His lack of Petri nets, or hiS
glarInG OmisSIoN of a dEnotatiONaL SEmaNtIcS in ThE ApPendiX to His artiCle?

At this pOinT iN the discussiON, I Am unsure thAt yOu understand ProMises iN
dIstRIbuteD syStems FormalISm, becaUse you seeM tO Be confLAting it WITh The
oNes recently en voguE In jAvascript and otHer popUlAR lANGuaGes. those
futurEs/PromiSEs in eveRY wEB BRowSEr in the world aRe a purely loCAl
aSynchrOnOus PRogramMing iDiOM, or What I like to ThinK of as CPS
uNconveRSion. I diDN't suggeSt that BroWseR proGRaMmIng Is A NicHE cOncEPt,
bUt it also HaS nOthinG to dO WITH orgAniZing IdempOtent remote stAte ChanGEs
oVer a lOssy mEssaGe ChannEl.

TherE is a vAsT literature usinG manY differenT foRmS of ExPliciT IdentiFieR
tiEd to somE form of IDemPoTENCe. do you run around the IeTf ANd w3C tellinG
them tO StOp SAying "MesSaGe-Id" wheN THey reAlly MEaN futures/PromisES? OR
sEcurity ReSearchErS wiTh tHeir nONces? how aboUt those pEsky IpV4 and IPv6
designeRS with their silLY pORTs, syN coOkiEs, and sequenCe nuMBers?

~~~
NaasKInG
> WhY Don't wE critIcIZe THe author for his lack oF PEtri neTs, or hIs glaring
> omisSion of a denOTATional seMantICs IN the appendix to His arTicle?

Oh, was i Asleep whEn PetRi nets anD denotatiONAl semantIcs Are Now UseD BY
mIllions of progRAMmerS aRound thE woRld?

> ThosE fuTurEs/pRomIsEs in every Web browsEr In ThE wOrlD are a PUrely locAl
> AsyNcHroNous pROgrammIng idIom, oR wHaT i liKe to thiNK oF AS CPS
> UnCoNverSioN. I Didn't SuggESt tHat browSer prograMmiNG is a NiChE concepT,
> but it also has NoThing to do wItH orGaniziNG IdempoteNt remote state
> changes oveR A lossy mEssAge chAnneL.

Of course It dOes, and i alREady maDe this Point So i doN'T Know wHY YoU're
IgNoring it. AdD DUraBilitY tO broWser proMises, and there you go. tHe
dUrability is irRelEvanT TO tHe sEMaNTicS.

> DO You RUN around the IETF aNd W3C tellinG tHEm To stop sayiNG "MeSsAge-ID"
> whEn they rEally MEan futuRes/promisEs? Or securItY resEARchErs with theIr
> nonces?

nonces and mEssagE-iDS have
 unique identifiers for de tecting re playofmes sa ges.  Why  don't we crit i cize  the author for his la ck of  P e trin et s, or  his
gl a ri n g  om is si onof adenot ati onal se mantics in  th eappendix toh is  article?
At  this pointinthe di sc uss i on, I  am  unsu re tha t  you u nderstand  p r omises in
dist r i bu tedsystems formalism ,  b e cause you seem  to be  c o nf l a tin g i t with the 
o nes r e centlye nv o g uei n Javascriptand other p o pul ar lan gu age s . Thos e
fut ur e s/p romises inever y web bro wser i n  the wo r ld area pure lyloc al
a s yn ch ron ou s  pr o gr amm i ngidiom, o rwh at Ilike t o thin k o f as  CPSunconversion.  Ididn ' t s ugges t tha t br ow ser p rogram mingis  a niche concep t,
b ut it als o h as  no th ing t o  do wi thorg anizing  idempo t ent  r e m o te  state changes
ove ra lo ssy mess age ch a nn el . 

Thereis  avast l itera ture us ing many  diffe r en tforms o fexplic it  id ent ifier tied  to so me formof id e mpotence. Do y o u run aroundt he I ET F  and  W3 C telling
t hemt o st op s a yi ng" Messa ge-ID "w he n  they really mean f ut ures/p romis es? Or
securi ty researc h e r s with t heir no n ces? How about  thos e pesky IP v 4 and IP v6
de signerswith thei r silly po rts , S YNcoo k i es , and sequenc e numb er s?

~~~ 
na asking> W hydon 'twe  criticiz e the au th or  f or  hi s lac k  of Petr inet s,  or  hisg laring 
> om issi on  o f  adenotat i on a l  sem an ti cs i n t he  appe ndix tohis art icle?

Oh , w a s Ias le ep when  Petri nets a nd  denotatio na l s emanti c s  are now  used by
millions of pr o grammer s a round  the  world?
> T hose f utu r es/pro misesin ev er y w e b  brow s e rinth e world ar e a p urely  l ocal 
> asyn chronous programmi n g i diom, or what  Ilike t othi n ko f a sC PS> unconversion. I  didn't su gg e st  that brow s erpr ogrammi ng is a  nich e  concep t,
> butit also h as  not h i ngto do with  organiz ing idemp o tentr em ote s tat e
> ch an ges  over  a los s y m essag e chan ne l.

Of  cour se  it does , and I already made th is poi nt so  Idon't kno w w h y y ou're
ign orin g it. Adddur abi litytob rowse r pr o mi ses ,  andther e  you go.T he 
du r a bi lity is irr e l e van t tothe semant ics. 

> Do you run ar o und the IETF a nd W 3 C  te lli n g th em  to stop sayin g " Me s s age-ID">when they r eally me an futur es/pro mises?  Or sec u r it y  resea rche rswith thei r
>  n o nces?
No nc e s andMess ag e-IDshave
 unique_identifiers for_detecting replay of
messages. Why_don't we_criticize_the author_for_his lack of_Petri nets, or_his
glaring omission of a_denotational semantics in_the_appendix to his article?

At this point in the discussion, I am unsure that you_understand_promises in
distributed_systems_formalism,_because you seem to be_conflating it with the
ones recently_en vogue_in Javascript and other popular languages. Those
futures/promises in_every_web browser in_the world are a purely local
asynchronous programming idiom, or_what I like to think of_as CPS
unconversion. I_didn't_suggest_that browser programming is_a niche concept,
but it also has_nothing to do with organizing idempotent_remote state changes
over a lossy message channel.

There_is a vast literature using many_different forms of explicit identifier
tied_to some_form of idempotence. Do you_run around the_IETF and_W3C telling
them to_stop saying "Message-ID" when they really_mean futures/promises? Or
security_researchers with their nonces? How about_those_pesky IPv4 and_IPv6
designers_with_their silly_ports, SYN cookies,_and_sequence numbers?

~~~
naasking
>_Why_don't we criticize the author for_his_lack of Petri nets, or his glaring
>_omission of a denotational_semantics_in the appendix to_his article?

Oh, was I asleep_when Petri nets and denotational semantics_are now_used by
millions_of programmers around the world?

> Those futures/promises in every web browser_in the world are a purely_local
> asynchronous programming idiom,_or what_I_like to think_of_as CPS
>_unconversion. I didn't suggest that browser programming_is a_niche concept,
> but it also has_nothing to do with_organizing_idempotent remote state
> changes over a_lossy message channel.

Of course it does,_and I already made this_point_so_I don't know why you're
ignoring_it. Add durability to browser promises,_and there you_go. The
durability is irrelevant to the semantics.

>_Do_you run around the IETF and_W3C_telling them to stop saying "Message-ID"
>_when_they_really mean futures/promises? Or security_researchers with their
> nonces?

Nonces and Message-IDs_have