HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
promises-aplus
promises-spec
Web Development2012–2026
promises-aplus / promises-spec

promises-spec

An open standard for sound, interoperable JavaScript promises—by implementers, for implementers.

27Distinct people
29Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
1.8KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

An open standard for sound, interoperable JavaScript promises—by implementers, for implementers.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

You mean this thread? https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94 I love reading the for-against monadic promises. It actually is educating just following the…

algesten used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year29 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2012-11-07 21:50:10 UTC to 2026-06-30 11:38:43 UTC.

024682012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments20122013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 1 submissions, 7 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC817
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Promises/A+ An open standard for sound, interoperable JavaScript promises—by implementers, for implementers. A promise represents the eventual result of an asynchronous operation. The primary way of interacting with a promise is through its then method, which registers callbacks to receive either a promise's eventual value or the reason why the promise cannot be fulfilled. This specification details the behavior of the then method, providing an interoperable base which all Promises/A+ conformant promise implementations can be depended on to provide. As such, the specification should be considered very stable. Although the Promises/A+ organization may occasionally revise this specification with minor backward-compatible changes to address newly-discovered corner cases, we will integrate large or backward-incompatible changes only after careful consideration, discussion, and testing. Historically, Promises/A+ clarifies the behavioral clauses of the earlier Promises/A proposal, extending it to cover de facto behaviors and omitting parts that are underspecified or problematic. Finally, the core Promises/A+ specification does not deal with how to create, fulfill, or reject promises, choosing instead to focus on providing an interoperable then method. Future work in companion specifications may touch on these subjects. Terminology "promise" is an object or function with a then method whose behavior conforms to this specification. "thenable" is an object or function that defines a then method. "value" is any legal JavaScript value (including undefined, a thenable, or a promise). "exception" is a value that is thrown using the throw statement. "reason" is a value that indicates why a promise was rejected. Requirements Promise States A promise must be in one of three states: pending, fulfilled, or rejected. When pending, a promise: may transition to either the fulfilled or rejected state. When fulfilled, a promise: must not transition to any other state. must have a value, which must not change. When rejected, a promise: must not transition to any other state. must have a reason, which must not change. Here, "must not change" means immutable identity (i.e. ===), but does not imply deep immutability. The then Method A promise must provide a then method to access its current or eventual value or reason. A promise's then method accepts two arguments: promise.then(onFulfilled, onRejected) Both onFulfilled and onRejected are optional arguments: If onFulfilled is not a function, it must be ignored. If onRejected is not a function, it must be ignored. If onFulfilled is a function: it must be called after promise is fulfilled, with promise's value as its first argument. it must not be called before promise is fulfilled. it must not be called more than once. If onRejected is a function, it must be called after promise is rejected, with promise's reason as its first argument. it must not be called before promise is rejected. it must not be called more than once. onFulfilled or onRejected must not be called until the execution context stack contains only platform code. [3.1]. onFulfilled and onRejected must be called as functions (i.e. with no this value). [3.2] then may be called multiple times on the same promise. If/when promise is fulfilled, all respective onFulfilled callbacks must execute in the order of their originating calls to then. If/when promise is rejected, all respective onRejected callbacks must execute in the order of their originating calls to then. then must return a promise [3.3]. promise2 = promise1.then(onFulfilled, onRejected); If either onFulfilled or onRejected returns a value x, run the Promise Resolution Procedure [[Resolve]](promise2, x). If either onFulfilled or onRejected throws an exception e, promise2 must be rejected with e as the reason. If onFulfilled is not a function and promise1 is fulfilled, promise2 must be fulfilled with the same value as promise1. If onRejected is not a function and promise1 is rejected, promise2 must be rejected with the same reason as promise1. The Promise Resolution Procedure The promise resolution procedure is an abstract operation taking as input a promise and a value, which we denote as [[Resolve]](promise, x). If x is a thenable, it attempts to make promise adopt the state of x, under the assumption that x behaves at least somewhat like a promise. Otherwise, it fulfills promise with the value x. This treatment of thenables allows promise implementations to interoperate, as long as they expose a Promises/A+-compliant then method. It also allows Promises/A+ implementations to "assimilate" nonconformant implementations with reasonable then methods. To run [[Resolve]](promise, x), perform the following steps: If promise and x refer to the same object, reject promise with a TypeError as the reason. If x is a promise, adopt its state [3.4]: If x is pending, promise must remain pending until x is fulfilled or rejected. If/when x is fulfilled, fulfill promise with the same value. If/when x is rejected, reject promise with the same reason. Otherwise, if x is an object or function, Let then be x.then. [3.5] If retrieving the property x.then results in a thrown exception e, reject promise with e as the reason. If then is a function, call it with x as this, first argument resolvePromise, and second argument rejectPromise, where: If/when resolvePromise is called with a value y, run [[Resolve]](promise, y). If/when rejectPromise is called with a reason r, reject promise with r. If both resolvePromise and rejectPromise are called, or multiple calls to the same argument are made, the first call takes precedence, and any further calls are ignored. If calling then throws an exception e, If resolvePromise or rejectPromise have been called, ignore it. Otherwise, reject promise with e as the reason. If then is not a function, fulfill promise with x. If x is not an object or function, fulfill promise with x. If
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

29 sources
Not so much a representation of a side effect (after all List is a Monad as is addition on integers no side effects anywhere in sight) as the reification of a particular category. JavaScript's `Promise` is particularly interesting because it is a Monad over "all JS values which do not contain a method called `then` in their prototype chain" or as Dominic put it 12 years ago: > Indeed, I like the way @medikoo phrases it. There's, practically speaking, nothing wrong with being a monad on the category of non-thenables. https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/101#i...
In Haskell: A Great Procedural Language
You don't need to understand monads to do IO. From [0]: > There is nothing that has to do with monads at all in printing a string. The idea that `putStrLn "hello world"` is monadic is as absurd as saying that `[1,2,3]` is monadic. You haven't linked any exemplar tutorials, but I feel confident in saying the ones you're referring to teach the general concept of monads, and not how to do IO with monads. Quite a number of JavaScript developers learned how to use `andThen` with Promises/A+ back in the day, and they didn't need to learn about monads either. (In fact, when it was raised that promises are really monads, there was serious drama and outrage [1] -- an existence proof if there ever was one, that you can use something productively without understanding it as a monad.) Likewise, nobody would claim that you need to understand monoids b
Read the rest
efore you can concatenate lists. Concatenating lists is as native to lists as sequencing commands is to IO; it's just part of how those types work. The monad interface abstracts over that idea, and learning that abstraction in its full generality is, typically, what people stumble on. [0]: https://blog.jle.im/entry/io-monad-considered-harmful.html [1]: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94
In Why do we need modules at all? (2011)
> So are the <T>, <B>, and <C> types ? Clojure has collections like [vectors], {maps}, '(lists/seq), #{sets} and a bunch of primitives that can fill up those collections, so I'm not certain how this relates exactly... They are. It's the generic notation that you'll find in Java, C#, Rust, etc.. They are statically typed languages, so instead of just saying [vector] like in Clojure, you would say Vector<T>, where T is the type of the things in the vector. Vector<T> by itself is not a type. You can think of it as a function that takes a type and returns a type: with Int, you would get Vector<Int>, with String, you would get Vector<String>. This isn't limited to collections: Option<T> represents a value that may or may not be there, Result<R, E> represents something that can be either a result, or an error. For the other collections, {maps}
Read the rest
would be Map<A, B>, lists would be List<T>, sets would be Set<T>. Note that T, A or B don't mean anything specifically, they are variable names. Usually people use very abstract names for generics because they are very abstract. But you could also do List<Element> or Map<Key, Value>. > Are promises and futures always monads? Not all the time. For example, JavaScript promises aren't monads. There's a relatively popular discussion about it here: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94. As another example of a monads, there Option<T>, called Maybe<T> in Haskell. It's used for a value that could be there. Java has Optional that looks like it, but isn't a monad since it doesn't follow the monad laws: https://www.sitepoint.com/how-optional-breaks-the-monad-laws.... A good way to think about monads is to think about them as mathematical objects. They respect some rules, and thus have some properties. When you're implementing something in a language, like promises, you can choose to have them respect the monad rules, so that they can have the monad properties. You can also not do that (like they did in JavaScript), and so people won't be able to use them like monads.
In Monads for Clojure Programmers
Apart from simplicity, it was designed to be used with "thenables". If the value that a Promise resolved with had a `then()` member, the value would be treated like a first-party Promise. So even if there was a separate fmap-then and bind-then, the fmap-then would have to deal with thenables and act like bind-then anyway. There's a bunch of history in [1], particularly [2] and [3], if you care to read them. [1]: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues [2]: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/75 [3]: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94
In Functors and Monads for People Who Have Read Too Many “Tutorials”
I think you'll find this interesting. It's a bit random but in another part of this thread your name appeared out of pure coincidence from another poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25557413 In the github thread (started in 2013) mentioned by pcen, you were part of the big debate on bringing more formalization to javascript promises. You were on the winning side (at the time) of NOT doing this. Your comment here: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94#is... Likely you muted the thread since then but the conversation continued. Now in 2020, times have changed and Typed javascript is not the dominant paradigm. However, the decisions made by you and your brethren back in 2013 continue to echo through eternity. The final comments in that thread (dated 2019) sums it up perfectly: https://github.com/promises-aplus/p
Read the rest
romises-spec/issues/94#is... and also: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94#is... This github thread was brought up to me as an example about how my Current thread is representative of history repeating the same mistakes. A decision to ignore formal theory in the past now results in a fundamental mistake that all JavaScript developers must live with. The irony is that you, Jonathan, are part of both histories, you made a mistake then, the question is are you repeating a similar mistake now? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong now, and disregarding the previous (minor) verbal scuffle we had... I thought you'd be interested in this tidbit of serendipity.
In Systems design explains the world: volume 1
Thank you for putting in the good fight. It will take a high-profile level catastrophe akin to the Challenger Disaster for the industry to move on from the current state and formalize even basic things we've known for decades such as category theory and functional programming. And unfortunately, the results will be heavy regulation. Until then, we will just have to watch history repeat through these types of discussions. [0] [0] https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94
In Systems design explains the world: volume 1
Python gets love for a number of choices it made right early on, and that its core langauge is obviously well thought out. Even very old Python is generally readable and clear; except for some colons, it looks like pseudo-code. This is the same reason I think Java gets a lot of respect: they had a few core language design ideas and built the language around them. People will say COBOL's syntax is horribly verbose, but you can see what they were trying to do. So you might dislike those choices, but your critique becomes about the consequences of the choice, which implicitly is something the person making it can't know at the time. With PHP, people are complaining that users have to live with a whole host of accidents or poorly thought out ideas that are now baked in. Other languages get criticized for that, too. Python was hammered over th
Read the rest
eir poorly thought out support for unicode in Py3K[4], which blocked many distros from supporting it until around 3.4. (And, generally, most people agreed Python3 was a mess until ~3.6 and the whole transition is widely seen as a case study in what not to do.) Java gets dislike for similar bad choices. Java's Date class is pretty notorious[2] as a how-not-to. Java arrays are covariant, and it was staring them in the face as they coded the ArrayStoreException[5] to deal with otherwise perfectly valid assignments. But the .NET one-upped them by knowingly making their arrays covariant, despite knowing it was a problem in Java. (Probably to make it possible to run Java on the CLR.) To pick on Javascript, critiques of promises[3] center around the fact that people proposed using monads, and the designers brushed it aside as theoretical. The famous 'wat' presentation[1] talks about behavior in Javascript (and others) that is magical and bizarre, and it's principally because Netscape has some neat ideas they didn't think through. [1]: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat [2]: https://codeblog.jonskeet.uk/2017/04/23/all-about-java-util-... [3]: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94 [4]: https://click.palletsprojects.com/en/7.x/python3/ [5]: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/ArraySto...
In 25 Years of PHP
Sexism is not the only theory that fits the facts. Has she ever considered that, maybe, a great many people in corporate tech are assholes? Back when I was working for the man, I had (idiots) sabotage my code over technical disagreements, followed by the the song of "jstewartmobile broke the build!" A little version control sleuthing later, and it's plain for all to see someone else's handiwork where it shouldn't have been. Have a relative who worked at Microsoft. He made the mistake of sharing an idea with his team. At the time, they said it wasn't worth pursuing. At the next eval, they stack-ranked him out of a job, then claimed the idea as their own after he was gone. Used to work with a bunch of printer guys. They had a story about when they were using Adobe's postscript engine and encountered a bug. They forwarded it along to
Read the rest
support, no dice. So, they dig deeper, pinpoint the exact bug, and forward it to Adobe's engineer. Months later, no progress. Then, the boss gets pissed, raises holy hell with Adobe, and Adobe sends out an engineer. Guy steps off plane and introduces himself by his school "John Doe, MIT." He listens to nothing they have to say. JD sits down, starts digging into the problem, and hours later, he acts as though he has genuinely "discovered" what they had already told him months ago. Or read the third comment in this thread w/ 236+ downvotes: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94 Or read all of the awful ways guys like Larry/Steve/Elon/Jeff/Travis/etc. treat other people. I mean, who in their right mind (if they put any value on kindness) would want to put wind in those guys' sails?
In My experience as a female engineer in the tech industry

Showing the 15 most recent of 29 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.