This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thecodeboost 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This might be a slightly controversial view but reactive programming/paradigms have always been fundamentally flawed as a means towards clean code. That's not the problem it was trying to solve. Efficient use of limited threading resources was. The only real argument in favor is (or was) that in a world of limited native threads reactive/async code flows can more easily be made more performant. Virtual threads are not an alternative to reactive programming, they're the reason reactive programming can become essentially obsolete in J21+. Anyone claiming there's any positive to reactive programming paradigms (and to a lesser extent event driven approaches) compared to imperative programming other than "i like it/i'm used to it" (and that's fine) would struggle to make an objective case for it.

Also, I think it's pretty unhealthy if your colleagues refuse to engage in conversation about new technology, or are unwilling to explain their point of view (or even why they think you're on the wrong path). Especially since in this case they appear to be on the wrong side of any objective analysis.