3 ms·
I don't think I'm entirely out of band to say there could be a better way of naming them, like why not call them SubscribableStream. Saying its an observable i
by no_wizard 3y ago
I don't think I'm entirely out of band to say there could be a better way of naming them, like why not call them SubscribableStream.
Saying its an observable invokes a messy gray area in people's brains. I know this because I've had to explain observables to co-workers more times than I can count in my career (I'm a big fan of RxJS, I didn't mean what I said as a dismissal), and I like them for async work vs promises in many many cases, but the nomenclature does not invoke easy understanding
- cassepipe 3y agoMaybe it would be easier for you (and your colleagues) if the function to "observe" observables was called... observe, instead of "subscribe ?
- no_wizard 3y agonot particularly, I think it would make it more confusing. When I break it down to folks explaining its stream processing over iterables or async work and you subscribe (and can unsubscribe) a pipeline that runs over that stream, people get it quickly. When I say you can "observe a stream" people start getting other connotations, for some reason. I have ran into this over and over and over. Smart people too, not talking about just juniors here
- troupo 3y agoBecause RxJS made at least one huge mistake: it made its observables lazy. When does it start? How do you deal with oversubscription? Late starts? Double subscriptions? On top of that streams are always a pain in the butt to debug. The fifteen million obtuse methods/operators didn't help either (I see there are significantly fewer now). And to remind you: it took the author of RxJava several months to understand the programming model: https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/811561007504093184 https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/811561007504093184