streams VS dom

Yup, this is what WHATWG's Streams spec[0] (linked in the article) says. It defines backpressure as a "process of normalizing flow from the original source according to how fast the chain can process chunks" where the reader "propagates a signal backwards through the pipe chain".

Mozilla's documentation[1] similarly defines backpressure as "the process by which a single stream or a pipe chain regulates the speed of reading/writing".

The article confuses backpressure (the signal used for regulation of the flow) with the reason backpressure is needed (producers and consumers working at different speeds). It should be fairly clear from the metaphor, I would have thought: With a pipe of unbounded size there is no pressure. The pressure builds up when consumer is slower than producer, which in turn slows down the producer. (Or the pipe explodes, or springs a leak and has to drop data on the ground.)

[0] https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/#pipe-chains

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Streams_API...

// https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/#example-transform-identity const { writable, readable } = new TransformStream(); fetch("...", { body: readable }).then(response => /* ... */); const writer = writable.getWriter(); writer.write(new Uint8Array([0x73, 0x74, 0x72, 0x65, 0x61, 0x6D, 0x73, 0x21])); // "streams!" writer.close();

Yeah, in your case I think most of the complexity is actually on the ReadableStream side, not the base64 side.

The thing that I'd actually want for your case is either a TransformStream for byte stream <-> base64 stream (which I expect will come eventually, once the simple case gets done), or something which would let you read the entire stream into Uint8Array or ArrayBuffer, which is a long-standing suggestion [1].

---

> Why does de-chunking a byte array need to be complicated

Keep in mind the concat proposal is _very_ early. If you think it would be useful to be able to concat Uint8Arrays and have that implicitly concatenate the underlying buffers, [2] is the place to open an issue.

---

> You have made me realize I don't even know what the right venue is to vote on stuff. How should I signal to TC39 that e.g. Array.fromAsync is a good idea?

Unfortunately, it's different places for different things. Streams are not TC39 at all; the right place for suggestions there is in the WHATWG streams repo [3]. Usually there's already an existing issue and you can add your use case as a comment in the relevant issue. TC39 proposals all have their own Github repositories, and you can open a new issue with your use case.

Concrete use cases are much more helpful than just "this is a good idea". Though `fromAsync` in particular everyone agrees is good, and it mostly just needs implementations, which are ongoing; see e.g. [4]. If you _really_ want to advance a stage 3 proposal, you can contribute a PR to Chrome or Firefox with an implementation - but for nontrivial proposals that's usually hard. For TC39 in particular, use cases are only really valuable pre-stage-3 proposals.

[1] https://github.com/whatwg/streams/issues/1019

[2] https://github.com/jasnell/proposal-zero-copy-arraybuffer-li...

[3] https://github.com/whatwg/streams

[4] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=13321

// AudioWorkletStream // Stream audio from Worker to AudioWorklet // guest271314 2-24-2020 let port; onmessage = async e => { 'use strict'; if (!port) { [port] = e.ports; port.onmessage = event => postMessage(event.data); } const { urls } = e.data; // https://github.com/whatwg/streams/blob/master/transferable-streams-explainer.md const { readable, writable } = new TransformStream(); (async _ => { for await (const _ of (async function* stream() { while (urls.length) { yield (await fetch(urls.shift(), {cache: 'no-store'})).body.pipeTo(writable, { preventClose: !!urls.length, }); } })()); })(); port.postMessage( { readable, }, [readable] ); };

in plain htmx, you can target an area that doesn't disrupt a playing video (e.g. the comments box appending to the comments) or you can use a morphing algorithm that disrupts the DOM less.

i have my own morphing algorithm (and a corresponding htmx plugin that allows you to use it) called idiomorph:

https://github.com/bigskysoftware/idiomorph/

i've also been working with the chrome team to get a feature added they are calling "atomic moves":

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1255

this would allow us to move elements around in the DOM without losing things like play state or focus or whatever

very excited for this last idea, I think it will be a huge boon for the web in general, not just for htmx

What I said in my previous comment is observably true. Try making a demo where it isn't.

> A DOM node is a living mutable thing, but the JavaScript object representing that node is not.

The JavaScript object is mutable. The first example in the article shows this.

> That is also why a node list is not an array.

Modern APIs on the web return platform arrays (eg JavaScript arrays). https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#js-sequence - here's where the WebIDL spec specifies how to convert a sequence to a JavaScript array.

I'm fully aware of NodeList. There's a reason the spec calls them "old-style" https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#old-style-collections

> I can understand how this is confusing if you have never operated without a framework, but otherwise it’s really straightforward

Sighhhhhh. I've been a web developer for over 20 years, and spent a decade on the Chrome team working on web platform features. Most of my career has been on the low-level parts of the platform.

Could it be possible that people are disagreeing with you, not because they're stupid, but because you're in the wrong? Please try to be open minded. Try creating some demos that test your opinions.

Domenic Denicola (the man who ruined promises) probably will as well.

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/67

I'm pretty sure it is, since I get "TypeError: nodes[i].parentNode.href is undefined" and "TypeError: $mainmenu.parent(...).get(...) is undefined" errors on both Pale Moon and LibreWolf. Which is part of Shadow/DOM, and originated from google (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/06/the-state-of-web-components/). Not sure when this particular thing was introduced, since it's a "living standard"/experimental feature (https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/).

JSX chose to align names to the DOM spec [0]. Same for htmlFor and friends.

[0] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dom-element-classname%E...

You can see why I say this here: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org

The product logos in this article's cover image include different languages and technologies some of which are still relevant for web development today: HTML, CSS, JavaScript / ES / TypeScript (and the DOM), SVG, PDF, PHP, SQL (mySQL, MariaDB), mongoDB, Node.js (the most successful server-side implementation of JavaScript so far).

Thanks for the shout-out! I think I mention this in the talk, but note that YMMV. I designed that benchmark as a kind of "worst-case scenario" where shadow DOM / scoped styles really show a benefit. Depending on your CSS rules, DOM size, and amount of thrashing, the perf benefit could be small to large.

Also, it's still possible to shoot yourself in the foot, especially if you have a large/complex stylesheet repeated across multiple shadow roots. (Not because of the repetition – that's optimized in browsers [1] – but rather because of the number of DOM nodes affected.)

That said, I still think the perf benefits of shadow DOM have been undersung. And Declarative Shadow DOM makes it way more useful.

[1]: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/831#issuecomment-585489...

We luh-luh-luv you! They gestated and nurtured the spec. They fought over bike sheds! All for us!!