3 ms·

> And that's not just a naming thing. I talk about this in much more detail here: "Can Programmers Escape the Gentle Tyranny of Call/Return?" (https://2020.prog

> And that's not just a naming thing. I talk about this in much more detail here: "Can Programmers Escape the Gentle Tyranny of Call/Return?" (https://2020.programming-conference.org/details/salon-2020-p https://2020.programming-conference.org/details/salon-2020-p...) I've read the paper and to be frank: I'm taken aback at how you brush away FRP in Chapter 9. And with an example in Java streams, of all languages/frameworks. Having to implement Builder methods? No named components/difficult to encapsulate because lambdas?? No, what you show with that example is not the "gentle tyranny" of call/return, it's the "gentle tyranny" of Java (which OTOH I find a surprisingly fitting phrase :) ).

mpweiher 5y ago
> I've read the paper Thanks! And sorry, I guess, I am still figuring this out and so it's not as coherent as I would like. >I'm taken aback at how you brush away FRP in Chapter 9 Sorry, page limit, I was simply out of space. I've done more thorough takedowns^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanalyses of Rx elsewhere. (FRP is really something else, as Conal Eliot tirelessly keeps pointing out). https://vimeo.com/168948673 https://vimeo.com/168948673 Mind you, bringing dataflow to mainstream programming is a Good Thing™, and in some ways Rx accomplishes that. But the hoops you have to jump through to get there are...oh boy. > Java streams Hmm...I found the issues in other frameworks to be very similar. Enjoy!