3 ms·
> just using dataflow programming directly is both simpler and faster, But a good reactive system is simpler to write, understand, and debug. At least that is
by mchahn 8y ago
> just using dataflow programming directly is both simpler and faster,
But a good reactive system is simpler to write, understand, and debug. At least that is what I found in my latest project.
- mpweiher 8y agoWhat dataflow system/language did you use to compare?
- mchahn 8y agoThe framework is custom. But I was really talking about how great reactive was for my application. It is a control system with a lot of inputs and outputs. The graph is about a dozen levels deep.
- mpweiher 8y agoSo you weren't actually comparing reactive with dataflow? Because what you write certainly sounds a lot like just dataflow.
- mchahn 8y agoI can't answer this without knowing your definition of reactive. To me, dataflow is simply a stream of data triggering calculations even if the data is unchanged. e.g. the stream of 1,2,2,3 would cause four calculations. Reactive means that only 1,2,3 would appear to the calculations. In other word only changes are reacted to. My framework is reactive by these definitions.