Differences between Futures in Python3 and Promises in ES6

Differences between Futures in Python3 and Promises in ES6 - javascript

Since Python 3.5, the keywords await and async are introduced to the language. Now, I'm more of a Python 2.7 person and I have been avoiding Python 3 for quite some time so asyncio is pretty new to me. From my understanding it seems like await/async works very similar to how they work in ES6 (or JavaScript, ES2015, however you want to call it.)
Here are two scripts I made to compare them.
import asyncio
async def countdown(n):
while n > 0:
print(n)
n -= 1
await asyncio.sleep(1)
async def main():
"""Main, executed in an event loop"""
# Creates two countdowns
futures = asyncio.gather(
countdown(3),
countdown(2)
)
# Wait for all of them to finish
await futures
# Exit the app
loop.stop()
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
asyncio.ensure_future(main())
loop.run_forever()
function sleep(n){
// ES6 does not provide native sleep method with promise support
return new Promise(res => setTimeout(res, n * 1000));
}
async function countdown(n){
while(n > 0){
console.log(n);
n -= 1;
await sleep(1);
}
}
async function main(){
// Creates two promises
var promises = Promise.all([
countdown(3),
countdown(2)
]);
// Wait for all of them to finish
await promises;
// Cannot stop interpreter's event loop
}
main();
One thing to notice is that the codes are very similar and they work pretty much the same.
Here are the questions:
In both Python and ES6, await/async are based on generators. Is it a correct to think Futures are the same as Promises?
I have seen the terms Task, Future and Coroutine used in the asyncio documentation. What are the differences between them?
Should I start writing Python code that always has an event loop running?

In both Python and ES6, await/async are based on generators. Is it a correct to think Futures are the same as Promises?
Not Future, but Python's Task is roughly equivalent to Javascript's Promise. See more details below.
I have seen the terms Task, Future and Coroutine used in the asyncio documentation. What are the differences between them?
They're quite different concepts. Mainly, Task consists of Future and Coroutine. Let's describe these primitives briefly (I am going to simplify lots of things to describe only main principles):
Future
Future is simply an abstraction of value that may be not computed yet and will be available eventually. It's a simple container that only does one thing - whenever the value is set, fire all registered callbacks.
If you want to obtain that value, you register a callback via add_done_callback() method.
But unlike in Promise, the actual computation is done externally - and that external code has to call set_result() method to resolve the future.
Coroutine
Coroutine is the object very similar to Generator.
A generator is typically iterated within for loop. It yields values and, starting from PEP342 acceptance, it receives values.
A coroutine is typically iterated within the event loop in depths of asyncio library. A coroutine yields Future instances. When you are iterating over a coroutine and it yields a future, you shall wait until this future is resolved. After that you shall send the value of future into the coroutine, then you receive another future, and so on.
An await expression is practically identical to yield from expression, so by awaiting other coroutine, you stop until that coroutine has all its futures resolved, and get coroutine's return value. The Future is one-tick iterable and its iterator returns actual Future - that roughly means that await future equals yield from future equals yield future.
Task
Task is Future which has been actually started to compute and is attached to event loop. So it's special kind of Future (class Task is derived from class Future), which is associated with some event loop, and it has some coroutine, which serves as Task executor.
Task is usually created by event loop object: you give a coroutine to the loop, it creates Task object and starts to iterate over that coroutine in manner described above. Once the coroutine is finished, Task's Future is resolved by coroutine's return value.
You see, the task is quite similar to JS Promise - it encapsulates background job and its result.
Coroutine Function and Async Function
Coroutine func is a factory of coroutines, like generator function to generators. Notice the difference between Python's coroutine function and Javascript's async function - JS async function, when called, creates a Promise and its internal generator immediately starts being iterated, while Python's coroutine does nothing, until Task is created upon it.
Should I start writing Python code that always has an event loop running?
If you need any asyncio feature, then you should. As it turns out it's quite hard to mix synchronous and asynchronous code - your whole program had better be asynchronous (but you can launch synchronous code chunks in separate threads via asyncio threadpool API)

I see the main difference downstream.
const promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => sendRequest(resolve, reject));
await promise;
In JavaScript, the two resolve and reject functions are created by the JS engine and they have to be passed around for you to keep track of them. In the end, you're still using two callback functions most of the time and the Promise won't really do more than setTimeout(() => doMoreStuff()) after doStuff calls resolve. There's no way to retrieve an old result or the status of a Promise once the callbacks were called. The Promise is mostly just the glue code between regular calls and async/await (so you can await the promise somewhere else) and a bit of error callback forwarding for chaining .thens.
future = asyncio.Future()
sendRequest(future)
await future
In Python, the Future itself becomes the interface with which a result is returned and it keeps track of the result.
Since Andril has given the closest Python equivalent to JavaScript's Promise (which is Task; you give it a callback and wait for it to complete), I'd like to go the other way.
class Future {
constructor() {
this.result = undefined;
this.exception = undefined;
this.done = false;
this.success = () => {};
this.fail = () => {};
}
result() {
if (!this.done) {
throw Error("still pending");
}
return this.result();
}
exception() {
if (!this.done) {
throw Error("still pending");
}
return this.exception();
}
setResult(result) {
if (this.done) {
throw Error("Already done");
}
this.result = result;
this.done = true;
this.success(this.result);
}
setException(exception) {
if (this.done) {
throw Error("Already done");
}
this.exception = exception;
this.done = true;
this.fail(this.exception);
}
then(success, fail) {
this.success = success;
this.fail = fail;
}
}
The JS await basically generates two callbacks that are passed to .then, where in a JS Promise the actual logic is supposed to happen. In many examples, this is where you'll find a setTimeout(resolve, 10000) to demonstrate the jump out of the event loop, but if you instead keep track of those two callbacks you can do with them whatever you want..
function doStuff(f) {
// keep for some network traffic or so
setTimeout(() => f.setResult(true), 3000);
}
const future = new Future();
doStuff(future);
console.log('still here');
console.log(await future);
The above example demonstrates that; three seconds after 'still here' you get 'true'.
As you can see, the difference is Promise receives a work function and deals with resolve and reject internally, while Future doesn't internalize the work and only cares about the callbacks. Personally, I prefer the Future because it's one layer less callback hell - which was one of the reasons for Promises in the first place: callback chaining.

Related

Promise.allSettled rewrite in async await

I got a piece of code that would submit several set of reports which they are independent each other, currently wrote in promise.allSettled, but I was told that the team standard would require async await instead of promise
"Never use multiple await for two or more independent async parallel tasks, because you will not be able to handle errors correctly. Always use Promise.all() for this use case."
1
"In comparison, the Promise returned by Promise.all() may be more appropriate if the tasks are dependent on each other / if you'd like to immediately reject upon any of them rejecting."
2
"Using for await...of, you have more granular control of the promises. So if the order in which promises complete is important to you, for await...of is your preferred choice. However, the increased control isn’t free. The fact that for await...of handles promises one by one, makes it a lot slower."
"To sum up, the three methods are all capable of handling iterables of promises, but differ slightly in their functioning. Use for await of if the order in which promises are resolved is important to you. Use Promise.all() if the order isn’t important and you need all calls to succeed. Use Promise.allSettled() if the order isn’t important and you don’t absolutely need all individual calls to be successful."
3
After some research, I found it is not possible to rewrite it in async await with the same efficiency (request execute in parallel) and simplicity (promise.allSettled is a built-in function), am I correct?
That piece of code
const recordInsertErrors:Object[] = [];
await Promise.allSettled(
jsonArray.map((eachPositionReport) => {
return PositionReport.query().insert(eachPositionReport).catch((err) => {
const error = { vessel_ownership_id: eachPositionReport.vessel_ownership_id, error: err.nativeError };
recordInsertErrors.push(error);
throw err;
});
}),
);

First of all JavaScript code does not run in parallel. The most we can say is that it executes asynchronously, i.e. it gets executed by the engine while monitoring its job queues. The "only" thing that might execute in parallel is lower-level, non-JavaScript logic, such as provided by some APIs that make asynchronous HTTP requests.
Secondly, whether an asynchronous operation starts while another is still underway, is not determined by the use of Promise.all, Promise.allSettled, for await ... of, ...etc, but by whether or not all involved promises are created immediately or not. That is part of the code that is not orchestrated by any of the mentioned constructs.
So surely you can use async and await keywords to achieve that asynchronous requests are made without waiting that a previous one has completed.
For instance:
const recordInsertErrors = [];
const promises = jsonArray.map(async (eachPositionReport) => {
let value;
try {
value = await PositionReport.query().insert(eachPositionReport);
} catch(err) {
value = {
vessel_ownership_id: eachPositionReport.vessel_ownership_id,
error: err.nativeError
};
}
return value;
});
// All promises will now fulfill, as errors are converted to
// fulfillments with an error property
(async () => {
for (const promise of promises) {
const value = await promise;
if (value.error) recordInsertErrors.push(value);
console.log(value);
}
})();
The for loop with await expressions will not delay the moment at which all promises have resolved. It will potentially report sooner on some results than Promise.allSettled, as the latter is designed to first wait until all promises have settled, and only then resolve its own promise.

How do Promises change the use of functions

I am having trouble finding a use for Promises. Wouldn't these 2 approaches below work the same exact way? Since the while loop in loopTest() is synchronous, logStatement() function wouldn't run until it's complete anyways so how would the the 2nd approach be any different ..wouldn't it be pointless in waiting for it to resolve() ?
1st approach:
function loopTest() {
while ( i < 10000 ) {
console.log(i)
i++
})
}
function logStatement() {
console.log("Logging test")
}
loopTest();
logStatement();
2nd approach:
function loopTest() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
while ( i < 10000 ) {
console.log(i)
i++
if (i === 999) {
resolve('I AM DONE')
}
})
});
}
function logStatement() {
console.log("Logging test")
}
loopTest().then(logStatement());

Promises don't make anything asynchronous,¹ so you're right, there's no point to using a promise in the code you've shown.
The purpose of promises is to provide a standard, composable means of observing the result of things that are already asynchronous (like ajax calls).
There are at least three massive benefits to having a standardized way to observe the results of asynchronous operations:
We can have standard semantics for consuming individual promises, rather than every API defining its own signature for callback functions. (Does it signal error with an initial parameter that's null on success, like Node.js? Does it call the callback with an object with a success flag? Or...)
We can have standard ways of composing/combining them, such as Promise.all, Promise.race, Promise.allSettled, etc.
We can have syntax to consume them with our usual control structures, which we have now in the form of async functions and await.
But again, throwing a promise at a synchronous process almost never does anything useful.²
¹ One very small caveat there: The handler functions to attach to a promise are always triggered asynchronously, whether the promise is already settled or not.
² Another small caveat: Sometimes, you have a synchronous result you want to include in a composition operation (Promise.all, etc.) with various asynchronous operations. In that case, wrapping the value in a promise that's instantly fulfilled is useful — and in fact, all the standard promise combinators (Promise.all, etc.) do that for you, as does await.

There's no point in what you are doing, because your function body is just a blocking loop.
To get a benefit from Promises, use it with APIs that do something with IO, such as a HTTP request, or reading a file from disk.
These APIs all traditionally used callbacks, and are now mostly Promise based.
Anything function that uses a Promise-based function, should itself also be Promise-based. This is why you see a lot of promises in modern code, as a promise only has to be used at 1 level in a stack for the entire stack to be asynchronous in nature.

Is this a better example of how Promises are used? This is all I can think of to make it show use to me:
Version 1
function getData() {
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos/1')
.then(data => data.json())
.then(json => console.log(json))
}
function logInfo() {
console.log("i am a logger")
}
getData()
logInfo()
// "I am a logger"
// {"test": "json"}
Version 2
function getData() {
return fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos/1')
.then(data => data.json())
.then(json => console.log(json))
}
function logInfo() {
console.log("i am a logger")
}
getData().then(logInfo);
// "{"test": "json"}
// "I am a logger"
// waits for API result to log _then_ logInfo is run , which makes a log statement

There's definitely benefits to using Promises but that's only in certain scenarios where their usage would seem viable.
Your example could represent what would happen when you retrieve data from an external source synchronously, it would block the thread preventing further code from executing until the loop terminates (I explain below why exactly that happens) - wrapping it in a promise gives no different output in that the thread is still being blocked and when the next message in the queue has to be processed, it gets processed like normal right after it ends.
However an implementation similar to this could achieve a while loop running in a non-blocking manner, just an idea (don't mean to derail this topic with setInterval's implementation):
let f = () => {
let tick = Date.now;
let t = tick();
let interval = setInterval(() => {
if (tick() - t >= 3000) {
console.log("stop");
clearInterval(interval);
}
}, 0);
};
f()
console.log("start");
Basically the time is checked/handled in a separate thread in the browser and the callback is executed every time the time specified runs out while the interval hasn't been cleared, after the call stack becomes empty (so UI function isn't affected) and the current executing function terminates/ends or after other functions above it in the stack finish running. I don't know about the performance implications of doing something like this but I feel like this should only be used when necessary, since the callback would have to be executed very frequently (with 0 timeout, although it's not guaranteed to be 0 anyway).
why it happens
I mainly want to clarify that while the handler functions will be scheduled to be executed asynchronously, every message in the queue has to be processed completely before the next one and for the duration your while loop executes, no new message can be processed in the event queue so it would be pointless to involve Promises where the same thing would happen without them.
So basically the answer to:
wouldn't it be pointless in waiting for it to resolve() ?
is yes, it would be pointless in this case.

Nested fetch in JavaScript [duplicate]

I've been developing JavaScript for a few years and I don't understand the fuss about promises at all.
It seems like all I do is change:
api(function(result){
api2(function(result2){
api3(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which I could use a library like async for anyway, with something like:
api().then(function(result){
api2().then(function(result2){
api3().then(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which is more code and less readable. I didn't gain anything here, it's not suddenly magically 'flat' either. Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
So, what's the big fuss about promises here?

Promises are not callbacks. A promise represents the future result of an asynchronous operation. Of course, writing them the way you do, you get little benefit. But if you write them the way they are meant to be used, you can write asynchronous code in a way that resembles synchronous code and is much more easy to follow:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
});
Certainly, not much less code, but much more readable.
But this is not the end. Let's discover the true benefits: What if you wanted to check for any error in any of the steps? It would be hell to do it with callbacks, but with promises, is a piece of cake:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
});
Pretty much the same as a try { ... } catch block.
Even better:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
}).then(function() {
//do something whether there was an error or not
//like hiding an spinner if you were performing an AJAX request.
});
And even better: What if those 3 calls to api, api2, api3 could run simultaneously (e.g. if they were AJAX calls) but you needed to wait for the three? Without promises, you should have to create some sort of counter. With promises, using the ES6 notation, is another piece of cake and pretty neat:
Promise.all([api(), api2(), api3()]).then(function(result) {
//do work. result is an array contains the values of the three fulfilled promises.
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle the error. At least one of the promises rejected.
});
Hope you see Promises in a new light now.

Yes, Promises are asynchronous callbacks. They can't do anything that callbacks can't do, and you face the same problems with asynchrony as with plain callbacks.
However, Promises are more than just callbacks. They are a very mighty abstraction, allow cleaner and better, functional code with less error-prone boilerplate.
So what's the main idea?
Promises are objects representing the result of a single (asynchronous) computation. They resolve to that result only once. There's a few things what this means:
Promises implement an observer pattern:
You don't need to know the callbacks that will use the value before the task completes.
Instead of expecting callbacks as arguments to your functions, you can easily return a Promise object
The promise will store the value, and you can transparently add a callback whenever you want. It will be called when the result is available. "Transparency" implies that when you have a promise and add a callback to it, it doesn't make a difference to your code whether the result has arrived yet - the API and contracts are the same, simplifying caching/memoisation a lot.
You can add multiple callbacks easily
Promises are chainable (monadic, if you want):
If you need to transform the value that a promise represents, you map a transform function over the promise and get back a new promise that represents the transformed result. You cannot synchronously get the value to use it somehow, but you can easily lift the transformation in the promise context. No boilerplate callbacks.
If you want to chain two asynchronous tasks, you can use the .then() method. It will take a callback to be called with the first result, and returns a promise for the result of the promise that the callback returns.
Sounds complicated? Time for a code example.
var p1 = api1(); // returning a promise
var p3 = p1.then(function(api1Result) {
var p2 = api2(); // returning a promise
return p2; // The result of p2 …
}); // … becomes the result of p3
// So it does not make a difference whether you write
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2().then(console.log)
})
// or the flattened version
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2();
}).then(console.log)
Flattening does not come magically, but you can easily do it. For your heavily nested example, the (near) equivalent would be
api1().then(api2).then(api3).then(/* do-work-callback */);
If seeing the code of these methods helps understanding, here's a most basic promise lib in a few lines.
What's the big fuss about promises?
The Promise abstraction allows much better composability of functions. For example, next to then for chaining, the all function creates a promise for the combined result of multiple parallel-waiting promises.
Last but not least Promises come with integrated error handling. The result of the computation might be that either the promise is fulfilled with a value, or it is rejected with a reason. All the composition functions handle this automatically and propagate errors in promise chains, so that you don't need to care about it explicitly everywhere - in contrast to a plain-callback implementation. In the end, you can add a dedicated error callback for all occurred exceptions.
Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
That's quite trivial actually with good promise libraries, see How do I convert an existing callback API to promises?

In addition to the already established answers, with ES6 arrow functions Promises turn from a modestly shining small blue dwarf straight into a red giant. That is about to collapse into a supernova:
api().then(result => api2()).then(result2 => api3()).then(result3 => console.log(result3))
As oligofren pointed out, without arguments between api calls you don't need the anonymous wrapper functions at all:
api().then(api2).then(api3).then(r3 => console.log(r3))
And finally, if you want to reach a supermassive black hole level, Promises can be awaited:
async function callApis() {
let api1Result = await api();
let api2Result = await api2(api1Result);
let api3Result = await api3(api2Result);
return api3Result;
}

In addition to the awesome answers above, 2 more points may be added:
1. Semantic difference:
Promises may be already resolved upon creation. This means they guarantee conditions rather than events. If they are resolved already, the resolved function passed to it is still called.
Conversely, callbacks handle events. So, if the event you are interested in has happened before the callback has been registered, the callback is not called.
2. Inversion of control
Callbacks involve inversion of control. When you register a callback function with any API, the Javascript runtime stores the callback function and calls it from the event loop once it is ready to be run.
Refer The Javascript Event loop for an explanation.
With Promises, control resides with the calling program. The .then() method may be called at any time if we store the promise object.

In addition to the other answers, the ES2015 syntax blends seamlessly with promises, reducing even more boilerplate code:
// Sequentially:
api1()
.then(r1 => api2(r1))
.then(r2 => api3(r2))
.then(r3 => {
// Done
});
// Parallel:
Promise.all([
api1(),
api2(),
api3()
]).then(([r1, r2, r3]) => {
// Done
});

Promises are not callbacks, both are programming idioms that facilitate async programming. Using an async/await-style of programming using coroutines or generators that return promises could be considered a 3rd such idiom. A comparison of these idioms across different programming languages (including Javascript) is here: https://github.com/KjellSchubert/promise-future-task

No, Not at all.
Callbacks are simply Functions In JavaScript which are to be called and then executed after the execution of another function has finished. So how it happens?
Actually, In JavaScript, functions are itself considered as objects and hence as all other objects, even functions can be sent as arguments to other functions. The most common and generic use case one can think of is setTimeout() function in JavaScript.
Promises are nothing but a much more improvised approach of handling and structuring asynchronous code in comparison to doing the same with callbacks.
The Promise receives two Callbacks in constructor function: resolve and reject. These callbacks inside promises provide us with fine-grained control over error handling and success cases. The resolve callback is used when the execution of promise performed successfully and the reject callback is used to handle the error cases.

No promises are just wrapper on callbacks
example
You can use javascript native promises with node js
my cloud 9 code link : https://ide.c9.io/adx2803/native-promises-in-node
/**
* Created by dixit-lab on 20/6/16.
*/
var express = require('express');
var request = require('request'); //Simplified HTTP request client.
var app = express();
function promisify(url) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
request.get(url, function (error, response, body) {
if (!error && response.statusCode == 200) {
resolve(body);
}
else {
reject(error);
}
})
});
}
//get all the albums of a user who have posted post 100
app.get('/listAlbums', function (req, res) {
//get the post with post id 100
promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/100').then(function (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
return promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users/' + obj.userId + '/albums')
})
.catch(function (e) {
console.log(e);
})
.then(function (result) {
res.end(result);
}
)
})
var server = app.listen(8081, function () {
var host = server.address().address
var port = server.address().port
console.log("Example app listening at http://%s:%s", host, port)
})
//run webservice on browser : http://localhost:8081/listAlbums

JavaScript Promises actually use callback functions to determine what to do after a Promise has been resolved or rejected, therefore both are not fundamentally different. The main idea behind Promises is to take callbacks - especially nested callbacks where you want to perform a sort of actions, but it would be more readable.

Promises overview:
In JS we can wrap asynchronous operations (e.g database calls, AJAX calls) in promises. Usually we want to run some additional logic on the retrieved data. JS promises have handler functions which process the result of the asynchronous operations. The handler functions can even have other asynchronous operations within them which could rely on the value of the previous asynchronous operations.
A promise always has of the 3 following states:
pending: starting state of every promise, neither fulfilled nor rejected.
fulfilled: The operation completed successfully.
rejected: The operation failed.
A pending promise can be resolved/fullfilled or rejected with a value. Then the following handler methods which take callbacks as arguments are called:
Promise.prototype.then() : When the promise is resolved the callback argument of this function will be called.
Promise.prototype.catch() : When the promise is rejected the callback argument of this function will be called.
Although the above methods skill get callback arguments they are far superior than using
only callbacks here is an example that will clarify a lot:
Example
function createProm(resolveVal, rejectVal) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
console.log("Resolved");
resolve(resolveVal);
} else {
console.log("Rejected");
reject(rejectVal);
}
}, 1000);
});
}
createProm(1, 2)
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 2;
})
.catch((rejectVal) => {
console.log(rejectVal);
return rejectVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
})
.finally(() => {
console.log("Promise done");
});
The createProm function creates a promises which is resolved or rejected based on a random Nr after 1 second
If the promise is resolved the first then method is called and the resolved value is passed in as an argument of the callback
If the promise is rejected the first catch method is called and the rejected value is passed in as an argument
The catch and then methods return promises that's why we can chain them. They wrap any returned value in Promise.resolve and any thrown value (using the throw keyword) in Promise.reject. So any value returned is transformed into a promise and on this promise we can again call a handler function.
Promise chains give us more fine tuned control and better overview than nested callbacks. For example the catch method handles all the errors which have occurred before the catch handler.

Promises allows programmers to write simpler and far more readable code than by using callbacks.
In a program, there are steps want to do in series.
function f() {
step_a();
step_b();
step_c();
...
}
There's usually information carried between each step.
function f() {
const a = step_a( );
const b = step_b( a );
const c = step_c( b );
...
}
Some of these steps can take a (relatively) long time, so sometimes you want to do them in parallel with other things. One way to do that is using threads. Another is asynchronous programming. (Both approaches has pros and cons, which won't be discussed here.) Here, we're talking about asynchronous programming.
The simple way to achieve the above when using asynchronous programming would be to provide a callback which is called once a step is complete.
// step_* calls the provided function with the returned value once complete.
function f() {
step_a(
function( a )
step_b(
function( b )
step_c(
...
)
},
)
},
)
}
That's quite hard to read. Promises offer a way to flatten the code.
// step_* returns a promise.
function f() {
step_a()
.then( step_b )
.then( step_c )
...
}
The object returned is called a promise because it represents the future result (i.e. promised result) of the function (which could be a value or an exception).
As much as promises help, it's still a bit complicated to use promises. This is where async and await come in. In a function declared as async, await can be used in lieu of then.
// step_* returns a promise.
async function f()
const a = await step_a( );
const b = await step_b( a );
const c = await step_c( b );
...
}
This is undeniably much much more readable than using callbacks.

Difference between Javascript async functions and Web workers?

Threading-wise, what's the difference between web workers and functions declared as
async function xxx()
{
}
?
I am aware web workers are executed on separate threads, but what about async functions? Are such functions threaded in the same way as a function executed through setInterval is, or are they subject to yet another different kind of threading?

async functions are just syntactic sugar around
Promises and they are wrappers for callbacks.
// v await is just syntactic sugar
// v Promises are just wrappers
// v functions taking callbacks are actually the source for the asynchronous behavior
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve));
Now a callback could be called back immediately by the code, e.g. if you .filter an array, or the engine could store the callback internally somewhere. Then, when a specific event occurs, it executes the callback. One could say that these are asynchronous callbacks, and those are usually the ones we wrap into Promises and await them.
To make sure that two callbacks do not run at the same time (which would make concurrent modifications possible, which causes a lot of trouble) whenever an event occurs the event does not get processed immediately, instead a Job (callback with arguments) gets placed into a Job Queue. Whenever the JavaScript Agent (= thread²) finishes execution of the current job, it looks into that queue for the next job to process¹.
Therefore one could say that an async function is just a way to express a continuous series of jobs.
async function getPage() {
// the first job starts fetching the webpage
const response = await fetch("https://stackoverflow.com"); // callback gets registered under the hood somewhere, somewhen an event gets triggered
// the second job starts parsing the content
const result = await response.json(); // again, callback and event under the hood
// the third job logs the result
console.log(result);
}
// the same series of jobs can also be found here:
fetch("https://stackoverflow.com") // first job
.then(response => response.json()) // second job / callback
.then(result => console.log(result)); // third job / callback
Although two jobs cannot run in parallel on one agent (= thread), the job of one async function might run between the jobs of another. Therefore, two async functions can run concurrently.
Now who does produce these asynchronous events? That depends on what you are awaiting in the async function (or rather: what callback you registered). If it is a timer (setTimeout), an internal timer is set and the JS-thread continues with other jobs until the timer is done and then it executes the callback passed. Some of them, especially in the Node.js environment (fetch, fs.readFile) will start another thread internally. You only hand over some arguments and receive the results when the thread is done (through an event).
To get real parallelism, that is running two jobs at the same time, multiple agents are needed. WebWorkers are exactly that - agents. The code in the WebWorker therefore runs independently (has it's own job queues and executor).
Agents can communicate with each other via events, and you can react to those events with callbacks. For sure you can await actions from another agent too, if you wrap the callbacks into Promises:
const workerDone = new Promise(res => window.onmessage = res);
(async function(){
const result = await workerDone;
//...
})();
TL;DR:
JS <---> callbacks / promises <--> internal Thread / Webworker
¹ There are other terms coined for this behavior, such as event loop / queue and others. The term Job is specified by ECMA262.
² How the engine implements agents is up to the engine, though as one agent may only execute one Job at a time, it very much makes sense to have one thread per agent.

In contrast to WebWorkers, async functions are never guaranteed to be executed on a separate thread.
They just don't block the whole thread until their response arrives. You can think of them as being registered as waiting for a result, let other code execute and when their response comes through they get executed; hence the name asynchronous programming.
This is achieved through a message queue, which is a list of messages to be processed. Each message has an associated function which gets called in order to handle the message.
Doing this:
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('foo')
}, 1000)
will simply add the callback function (that logs to the console) to the message queue. When it's 1000ms timer elapses, the message is popped from the message queue and executed.
While the timer is ticking, other code is free to execute. This is what gives the illusion of multithreading.
The setTimeout example above uses callbacks. Promises and async work the same way at a lower level — they piggyback on that message-queue concept, but are just syntactically different.

Workers are also accessed by asynchronous code (i.e. Promises) however Workers are a solution to the CPU intensive tasks which would block the thread that the JS code is being run on; even if this CPU intensive function is invoked asynchronously.
So if you have a CPU intensive function like renderThread(duration) and if you do like
new Promise((v,x) => setTimeout(_ => (renderThread(500), v(1)),0)
.then(v => console.log(v);
new Promise((v,x) => setTimeout(_ => (renderThread(100), v(2)),0)
.then(v => console.log(v);
Even if second one takes less time to complete it will only be invoked after the first one releases the CPU thread. So we will get first 1 and then 2 on console.
However had these two function been run on separate Workers, then the outcome we expect would be 2 and 1 as then they could run concurrently and the second one finishes and returns a message earlier.
So for basic IO operations standard single threaded asynchronous code is very efficient and the need for Workers arises from need of using tasks which are CPU intensive and can be segmented (assigned to multiple Workers at once) such as FFT and whatnot.

Async functions have nothing to do with web workers or node child processes - unlike those, they are not a solution for parallel processing on multiple threads.
An async function is just1 syntactic sugar for a function returning a promise then() chain.
async function example() {
await delay(1000);
console.log("waited.");
}
is just the same as
function example() {
return Promise.resolve(delay(1000)).then(() => {
console.log("waited.");
});
}
These two are virtually indistinguishable in their behaviour. The semantics of await or a specified in terms of promises, and every async function does return a promise for its result.
1: The syntactic sugar gets a bit more elaborate in the presence of control structures such as if/else or loops which are much harder to express as a linear promise chain, but it's still conceptually the same.
Are such functions threaded in the same way as a function executed through setInterval is?
Yes, the asynchronous parts of async functions run as (promise) callbacks on the standard event loop. The delay in the example above would implemented with the normal setTimeout - wrapped in a promise for easy consumption:
function delay(t) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, t);
});
}

I want to add my own answer to my question, with the understanding I gathered through all the other people's answers:
Ultimately, all but web workers, are glorified callbacks. Code in async functions, functions called through promises, functions called through setInterval and such - all get executed in the main thread with a mechanism akin to context switching. No parallelism exists at all.
True parallel execution with all its advantages and pitfalls, pertains to webworkers and webworkers alone.
(pity - I thought with "async functions" we finally got streamlined and "inline" threading)

Here is a way to call standard functions as workers, enabling true parallelism. It's an unholy hack written in blood with help from satan, and probably there are a ton of browser quirks that can break it, but as far as I can tell it works.
[constraints: the function header has to be as simple as function f(a,b,c) and if there's any result, it has to go through a return statement]
function Async(func, params, callback)
{
// ACQUIRE ORIGINAL FUNCTION'S CODE
var text = func.toString();
// EXTRACT ARGUMENTS
var args = text.slice(text.indexOf("(") + 1, text.indexOf(")"));
args = args.split(",");
for(arg of args) arg = arg.trim();
// ALTER FUNCTION'S CODE:
// 1) DECLARE ARGUMENTS AS VARIABLES
// 2) REPLACE RETURN STATEMENTS WITH THREAD POSTMESSAGE AND TERMINATION
var body = text.slice(text.indexOf("{") + 1, text.lastIndexOf("}"));
for(var i = 0, c = params.length; i<c; i++) body = "var " + args[i] + " = " + JSON.stringify(params[i]) + ";" + body;
body = body + " self.close();";
body = body.replace(/return\s+([^;]*);/g, 'self.postMessage($1); self.close();');
// CREATE THE WORKER FROM FUNCTION'S ALTERED CODE
var code = URL.createObjectURL(new Blob([body], {type:"text/javascript"}));
var thread = new Worker(code);
// WHEN THE WORKER SENDS BACK A RESULT, CALLBACK AND TERMINATE THE THREAD
thread.onmessage =
function(result)
{
if(callback) callback(result.data);
thread.terminate();
}
}
So, assuming you have this potentially cpu intensive function...
function HeavyWorkload(nx, ny)
{
var data = [];
for(var x = 0; x < nx; x++)
{
data[x] = [];
for(var y = 0; y < ny; y++)
{
data[x][y] = Math.random();
}
}
return data;
}
...you can now call it like this:
Async(HeavyWorkload, [1000, 1000],
function(result)
{
console.log(result);
}
);

Can someone give an example on how a promise in Node.js is better than using a callback function? [duplicate]

I've been developing JavaScript for a few years and I don't understand the fuss about promises at all.
It seems like all I do is change:
api(function(result){
api2(function(result2){
api3(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which I could use a library like async for anyway, with something like:
api().then(function(result){
api2().then(function(result2){
api3().then(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which is more code and less readable. I didn't gain anything here, it's not suddenly magically 'flat' either. Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
So, what's the big fuss about promises here?

Promises are not callbacks. A promise represents the future result of an asynchronous operation. Of course, writing them the way you do, you get little benefit. But if you write them the way they are meant to be used, you can write asynchronous code in a way that resembles synchronous code and is much more easy to follow:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
});
Certainly, not much less code, but much more readable.
But this is not the end. Let's discover the true benefits: What if you wanted to check for any error in any of the steps? It would be hell to do it with callbacks, but with promises, is a piece of cake:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
});
Pretty much the same as a try { ... } catch block.
Even better:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
}).then(function() {
//do something whether there was an error or not
//like hiding an spinner if you were performing an AJAX request.
});
And even better: What if those 3 calls to api, api2, api3 could run simultaneously (e.g. if they were AJAX calls) but you needed to wait for the three? Without promises, you should have to create some sort of counter. With promises, using the ES6 notation, is another piece of cake and pretty neat:
Promise.all([api(), api2(), api3()]).then(function(result) {
//do work. result is an array contains the values of the three fulfilled promises.
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle the error. At least one of the promises rejected.
});
Hope you see Promises in a new light now.

Yes, Promises are asynchronous callbacks. They can't do anything that callbacks can't do, and you face the same problems with asynchrony as with plain callbacks.
However, Promises are more than just callbacks. They are a very mighty abstraction, allow cleaner and better, functional code with less error-prone boilerplate.
So what's the main idea?
Promises are objects representing the result of a single (asynchronous) computation. They resolve to that result only once. There's a few things what this means:
Promises implement an observer pattern:
You don't need to know the callbacks that will use the value before the task completes.
Instead of expecting callbacks as arguments to your functions, you can easily return a Promise object
The promise will store the value, and you can transparently add a callback whenever you want. It will be called when the result is available. "Transparency" implies that when you have a promise and add a callback to it, it doesn't make a difference to your code whether the result has arrived yet - the API and contracts are the same, simplifying caching/memoisation a lot.
You can add multiple callbacks easily
Promises are chainable (monadic, if you want):
If you need to transform the value that a promise represents, you map a transform function over the promise and get back a new promise that represents the transformed result. You cannot synchronously get the value to use it somehow, but you can easily lift the transformation in the promise context. No boilerplate callbacks.
If you want to chain two asynchronous tasks, you can use the .then() method. It will take a callback to be called with the first result, and returns a promise for the result of the promise that the callback returns.
Sounds complicated? Time for a code example.
var p1 = api1(); // returning a promise
var p3 = p1.then(function(api1Result) {
var p2 = api2(); // returning a promise
return p2; // The result of p2 …
}); // … becomes the result of p3
// So it does not make a difference whether you write
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2().then(console.log)
})
// or the flattened version
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2();
}).then(console.log)
Flattening does not come magically, but you can easily do it. For your heavily nested example, the (near) equivalent would be
api1().then(api2).then(api3).then(/* do-work-callback */);
If seeing the code of these methods helps understanding, here's a most basic promise lib in a few lines.
What's the big fuss about promises?
The Promise abstraction allows much better composability of functions. For example, next to then for chaining, the all function creates a promise for the combined result of multiple parallel-waiting promises.
Last but not least Promises come with integrated error handling. The result of the computation might be that either the promise is fulfilled with a value, or it is rejected with a reason. All the composition functions handle this automatically and propagate errors in promise chains, so that you don't need to care about it explicitly everywhere - in contrast to a plain-callback implementation. In the end, you can add a dedicated error callback for all occurred exceptions.
Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
That's quite trivial actually with good promise libraries, see How do I convert an existing callback API to promises?

In addition to the already established answers, with ES6 arrow functions Promises turn from a modestly shining small blue dwarf straight into a red giant. That is about to collapse into a supernova:
api().then(result => api2()).then(result2 => api3()).then(result3 => console.log(result3))
As oligofren pointed out, without arguments between api calls you don't need the anonymous wrapper functions at all:
api().then(api2).then(api3).then(r3 => console.log(r3))
And finally, if you want to reach a supermassive black hole level, Promises can be awaited:
async function callApis() {
let api1Result = await api();
let api2Result = await api2(api1Result);
let api3Result = await api3(api2Result);
return api3Result;
}

In addition to the awesome answers above, 2 more points may be added:
1. Semantic difference:
Promises may be already resolved upon creation. This means they guarantee conditions rather than events. If they are resolved already, the resolved function passed to it is still called.
Conversely, callbacks handle events. So, if the event you are interested in has happened before the callback has been registered, the callback is not called.
2. Inversion of control
Callbacks involve inversion of control. When you register a callback function with any API, the Javascript runtime stores the callback function and calls it from the event loop once it is ready to be run.
Refer The Javascript Event loop for an explanation.
With Promises, control resides with the calling program. The .then() method may be called at any time if we store the promise object.

In addition to the other answers, the ES2015 syntax blends seamlessly with promises, reducing even more boilerplate code:
// Sequentially:
api1()
.then(r1 => api2(r1))
.then(r2 => api3(r2))
.then(r3 => {
// Done
});
// Parallel:
Promise.all([
api1(),
api2(),
api3()
]).then(([r1, r2, r3]) => {
// Done
});

Promises are not callbacks, both are programming idioms that facilitate async programming. Using an async/await-style of programming using coroutines or generators that return promises could be considered a 3rd such idiom. A comparison of these idioms across different programming languages (including Javascript) is here: https://github.com/KjellSchubert/promise-future-task

No, Not at all.
Callbacks are simply Functions In JavaScript which are to be called and then executed after the execution of another function has finished. So how it happens?
Actually, In JavaScript, functions are itself considered as objects and hence as all other objects, even functions can be sent as arguments to other functions. The most common and generic use case one can think of is setTimeout() function in JavaScript.
Promises are nothing but a much more improvised approach of handling and structuring asynchronous code in comparison to doing the same with callbacks.
The Promise receives two Callbacks in constructor function: resolve and reject. These callbacks inside promises provide us with fine-grained control over error handling and success cases. The resolve callback is used when the execution of promise performed successfully and the reject callback is used to handle the error cases.

No promises are just wrapper on callbacks
example
You can use javascript native promises with node js
my cloud 9 code link : https://ide.c9.io/adx2803/native-promises-in-node
/**
* Created by dixit-lab on 20/6/16.
*/
var express = require('express');
var request = require('request'); //Simplified HTTP request client.
var app = express();
function promisify(url) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
request.get(url, function (error, response, body) {
if (!error && response.statusCode == 200) {
resolve(body);
}
else {
reject(error);
}
})
});
}
//get all the albums of a user who have posted post 100
app.get('/listAlbums', function (req, res) {
//get the post with post id 100
promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/100').then(function (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
return promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users/' + obj.userId + '/albums')
})
.catch(function (e) {
console.log(e);
})
.then(function (result) {
res.end(result);
}
)
})
var server = app.listen(8081, function () {
var host = server.address().address
var port = server.address().port
console.log("Example app listening at http://%s:%s", host, port)
})
//run webservice on browser : http://localhost:8081/listAlbums

JavaScript Promises actually use callback functions to determine what to do after a Promise has been resolved or rejected, therefore both are not fundamentally different. The main idea behind Promises is to take callbacks - especially nested callbacks where you want to perform a sort of actions, but it would be more readable.

Promises overview:
In JS we can wrap asynchronous operations (e.g database calls, AJAX calls) in promises. Usually we want to run some additional logic on the retrieved data. JS promises have handler functions which process the result of the asynchronous operations. The handler functions can even have other asynchronous operations within them which could rely on the value of the previous asynchronous operations.
A promise always has of the 3 following states:
pending: starting state of every promise, neither fulfilled nor rejected.
fulfilled: The operation completed successfully.
rejected: The operation failed.
A pending promise can be resolved/fullfilled or rejected with a value. Then the following handler methods which take callbacks as arguments are called:
Promise.prototype.then() : When the promise is resolved the callback argument of this function will be called.
Promise.prototype.catch() : When the promise is rejected the callback argument of this function will be called.
Although the above methods skill get callback arguments they are far superior than using
only callbacks here is an example that will clarify a lot:
Example
function createProm(resolveVal, rejectVal) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
console.log("Resolved");
resolve(resolveVal);
} else {
console.log("Rejected");
reject(rejectVal);
}
}, 1000);
});
}
createProm(1, 2)
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 2;
})
.catch((rejectVal) => {
console.log(rejectVal);
return rejectVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
})
.finally(() => {
console.log("Promise done");
});
The createProm function creates a promises which is resolved or rejected based on a random Nr after 1 second
If the promise is resolved the first then method is called and the resolved value is passed in as an argument of the callback
If the promise is rejected the first catch method is called and the rejected value is passed in as an argument
The catch and then methods return promises that's why we can chain them. They wrap any returned value in Promise.resolve and any thrown value (using the throw keyword) in Promise.reject. So any value returned is transformed into a promise and on this promise we can again call a handler function.
Promise chains give us more fine tuned control and better overview than nested callbacks. For example the catch method handles all the errors which have occurred before the catch handler.

Promises allows programmers to write simpler and far more readable code than by using callbacks.
In a program, there are steps want to do in series.
function f() {
step_a();
step_b();
step_c();
...
}
There's usually information carried between each step.
function f() {
const a = step_a( );
const b = step_b( a );
const c = step_c( b );
...
}
Some of these steps can take a (relatively) long time, so sometimes you want to do them in parallel with other things. One way to do that is using threads. Another is asynchronous programming. (Both approaches has pros and cons, which won't be discussed here.) Here, we're talking about asynchronous programming.
The simple way to achieve the above when using asynchronous programming would be to provide a callback which is called once a step is complete.
// step_* calls the provided function with the returned value once complete.
function f() {
step_a(
function( a )
step_b(
function( b )
step_c(
...
)
},
)
},
)
}
That's quite hard to read. Promises offer a way to flatten the code.
// step_* returns a promise.
function f() {
step_a()
.then( step_b )
.then( step_c )
...
}
The object returned is called a promise because it represents the future result (i.e. promised result) of the function (which could be a value or an exception).
As much as promises help, it's still a bit complicated to use promises. This is where async and await come in. In a function declared as async, await can be used in lieu of then.
// step_* returns a promise.
async function f()
const a = await step_a( );
const b = await step_b( a );
const c = await step_c( b );
...
}
This is undeniably much much more readable than using callbacks.

We Keep Coding

JavaScript is the programming language of the Web.