5 ms·
This has been very frustrating to me because it feels like many reactive frameworks for OOP languages are actively muddying the waters. I've had stuff like Reac
by jarcane 8y ago
This has been very frustrating to me because it feels like many reactive frameworks for OOP languages are actively muddying the waters. I've had stuff like ReactiveX recommended to me as "FRP" and it's nothing like the form, and just wastes my time.
If actual FRP for web wasn't doing so relatively well, I would begin to fear that FRP is heading the same way OOP did after Smalltalk, a shadow of the actual thing pushed as a buzzword to sell to marketing managers with no clue or concern about the actual tech.
And god help me, I do not want to see what the C++ of FRP looks like ...
- jcelerier 8y ago> And god help me, I do not want to see what the C++ of FRP looks like ... plenty of reactive libs in there. The original one was Qt with the signal system. More recent research in this domain is for instance RaftLib : https://github.com/RaftLib/RaftLib/blob/master/examples/general/sum/sumapp.cpp https://github.com/RaftLib/RaftLib/blob/master/examples/gene...
- jarcane 8y agoNot quite the analogy I was alluding to. Ie. not so much "FRP in C++" as "C++ : OOP :: ___ : FRP." Though I grant you that C++ could just as easily wind up filling both blanks.
- andrekandre 8y agojudging from where i work, that has already happened to a large degree, and i would guess elsewhere too... as alan kay would say "its all a pop culture" edit: spelling mistake