News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by tehbeard on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @05:50AM (#11712321)
Those other than fetch()s still do the "unnecessary conversion step". Don't dismiss fetch by the fact it doesn't hand hold or make assumptions.

It should be said that fetch() is quite low level call compared to what we've had before regarding ajax, so it makes sense in larger projects to wrap it to keep any logging, error handling and retry in one place.

Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by nailer on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @05:54AM (#11712335)
> it doesn't hand hold or make assumptions

Using MIME types isn't hand holding or making an assumption.

Yes, people who need the low level features will wrap it with a series of competing high level libraries. It's a missed opportunity to make a standard, capable high level API though.

Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by moron4hire on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @08:05AM (#11712865)
Fetch API also doesn't have any means of tracking progress, making it strictly inferior to XmlHTTPRequest
Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by nailer on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @09:10AM (#11713277)
In fetch's defence it will in future once the Streams API is finalised: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/21
Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by neoeldex on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @08:16AM (#11712935)
Fetch does have streaming uploads and downloads, and a quite some other features which doesn't come with xmlHttpRequest. Making it not strictly inferior to XMLHttpRequest
Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by moron4hire on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @10:08AM (#11713733)
Will have. Future tense. Not present tense.
Re:JavaScript async/await implemented in V8 by mathias on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @03:17PM (#11716480)