Hacker News Reader

The Chromium developers really dislike localStorage (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=58985#c7)

They'll have to fix this bug, but I won't be surprised if they try to remove localStorage entirely soon.

It sound like they hate synchronous APIs. Well, the synchronous nature of it wouldn't be a problem if:

1. JS has a language-level support for asyncrony. 2. The implementation of retrieval was performant enough or allowed for some way to control granularity of reads from the code.

I really dislike that the idea that the only simple API for local storage will be gutted because of reasons quite tangential for what it does.

So synchronous APIs wouldn't be a problem if they were 1. Asynchronous or 2. Guaranteed to be really really fast? You do realize that the problem is that you can't guarantee that spinning rust will be fast, right?

I think he said that asynchronous APIs are a problem because they're hard to use well from JS, and that the performance of localStorage is a problem in part because the granularity of reads and writes is poorly specified.

Both of these things are true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com