> One problem with reactive programming (and also with promises), is that you are essentially using monadic composition in an imperative language. Because of th

> One problem with reactive programming (and also with promises), is that you are essentially using monadic composition in an imperative language. Because of the lack of special support for monads that you have in a language like Haskell, you have.to.chain.flow.control.methods. As a result of this, you lose access to the standard flow control the imperative language provides you, and you also generally end up with mangled stack traces. Now I know that rxjs5 is working on the stack trace problem through the usage of a recursive scheduler, but I'm not sure how this works on the Java side of things. Your point is kind of validated by C#'s introduction of async/await at the language level. If Rx extensions for .NET would have lived up to their promise (and those are much, much more mature that the poor man's imitation that is RxJava), there would have been no need to introduce a completely unrelated mechanism for doing async work (and mandate its usage in the Universal Windows Platform).