proposal-observable VS proposal-built-in-modules

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable

And there's the new one which seems to be getting implemented in node right now:

How does it differ from <https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable/>?

I think it is a shame that the Observable proposal [1] still seems somewhat stuck in Stage 1. It's a better idea than just raw event emitters because of composability (if no other reason). Making Observables "first class" could go a long way to unifying a lot of reactivity patterns in various frameworks, in theory at least.

To be fair, Observables and especially Observable composition has a rough learning curve and many frameworks like Svelte intentionally prefer implict reactivity and avoiding things like explicit Observables because they are seen as too complex/"too hard" for the average developer.

(Then you get awful worst of both worlds frameworks like Angular that sort of rely on Observables but yet also don't trust teaching Observables and wind up with code that isn't properly Observable and so also has all the code for implicit reactivity and is full of nasty escape hatches that cause all sorts of composition problems and unnecessary side effects.)

[1] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable

Uses an interface described in the TC39 observables proposal

JavaScript doesn't have any built-in observables (addEventListener is part of the DOM API specific to browsers) though there is an old observable proposal collecting dust. I think ReactiveX (RxJS) is pretty much the go-to for any kind of observable functionality you may want. That may be a good place to start to really see what observables can do.

Observablelar streamlarga asoslangan reaktiv dasturlash paradigmasini olib kiradi JSga. Shaxsan menga eng yoqqan takliflardan biri. Bu haqida ham alohida maqola yozish niyat bor. RxJS (Angular) bilan ishlab ko'rganlar bo'lsa buni nimaligini juda yaxshi tushunishadi, endi bu library emas balki native 🚀 !!!

Observable is an object that takes a stream of data and emits events over time to react accordingly. There is a talk to add it to the ECMAScript standard and its proposal is here. Till now it is not part of the ECMAScript standard so to use it, you have to use a third-party library and the well-known Reactive Extension in Javascript is RxJs.

Well, the answer is surprisingly no. But, there is an active tc39 proposal going on around for a while, didn’t find it much active though, you could watch out here — https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable

RxJS is an implementation of observables which do not exist natively in JavaScript. There is a proposal for adding observables to the language, but it's only stage 1 and hasn't been active for years.

There is proposal for stdlib, but it will take some time until (if ever) it will reach stage 4.

The working group most in charge of JS is ECMA's TC-39 (TC => Technical Committee) [0]. They've been taking a very deliberate, slow path to expanding the "standard" library because they take a very serious view of backwards compatibility on the web. Some proposals were shifted because of conflicts with ancient versions of things like MooTools still out in the wild, for instance. (This was the so-called "Smooshgate" incident [1].)

This may speed up a bit if the Built-In Modules proposal [2] passes, which would add a deliberate `import` URL for standard modules which would give a cleaner expansion point for new standard libraries over adding more global variables or further expanding the base prototypes (Object.prototype, Array.prototype, etc) in ways that increasingly likely have backwards compatibility issues.

TC-39 works all of their proposals in the open on Github [3] and it can be a fascinating process to watch if you are interested in the language's future direction.

[0] https://tc39.es/

[1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate

[2] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules

[3] https://github.com/tc39/proposals

There is a TC39 proposal for a "Javascript Standard Library." It's at stage 1, which is better than stage 0.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules

The standard library is a tough one. There is a proposal for built-in modules but it is very early days and miles away from what is needed. Clojure ships with functions that make the likes of Lodash and Ramda redundant. I think for a dynamic language an extensive library of functions for manipulating collections is essential. It is a real thing that once dynamic language codebases grow too big, they become a challenge to maintain. Therefore having functions that do a lot of common tasks for you mitigates that issue. Paired with immutability, lots of code just becomes data passing through pipelines, giving less surface area for bugs and making everything more concise and declarative.