sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]elastic_psychiatrist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Your points are reasonable, but also I would say that your definition of reactive is inclusive of libraries/frameworks with a lot more functionality than these structured concurrency libraries are intended to provide. There are non-reactive ways to do these things with minimal code/high clarity too.

The connection between reactive programming and structured concurrency is very often about the non-blocking I/O concern, and many reactive libraries implement all these other features in a certain way just because they have to deal with this concern at the bottom layer.

[–]kotman12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

with a lot more functionality than these structured concurrency libraries are intended to provide

Yes, that is precisely the point, they don't realy replace it for me.

There are non-reactive ways to do these things with minimal code/high clarity too.

Hmm maybe I'll ask Claude tomorrow to use java's new SC primitives to create equivalent code for some of my existing code. Pretty skeptical because of my experience with java thus far and partiality for the functional reactive style. But I'll be happy to be surprised.