> As a co-author of the reactive manifesto I'd like to point out that > "reactive" can be considered a superset of "async". Good reactive > applications are event driven and non-blocking. They are also responsive, > resilient, and scalable which async can help with but does not prescribe. > > What are the "bad connotations"? I'm curious to understand other > perspectives on this. >
I would say the opposite. Asynchronous or not >happening, moving, or existing at the same time<http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/synchronous>< does not necessarily imply non-blocking. It simply emphasizes that "things" might coexist without an explicit dependency (in a time dimension) on each other. At the same time (pun not intended) reactive<http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/reactive>limits itself to responding to events which implies a control by some sort of FSM. Perhaps concurrency could be modeled using FSMs, but I do not believe it is always a simple transition. Andy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
