> Thanks Joseph > Trouble is there is stew of technologies/languages… > (meta)-stewed with more abstract concepts, eg push vs pull, > Enumerable-Observable > duality, continuous vs discrete time > The last causing its own share of confusion with “functional reactive > programming” (FRP) meaning sometimes the one and sometimes the other: > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4982
Heh, Yeah I don't claim to be an expert, I have only just started using the syntax in my own projects whereas I almost always used the classical thread model with sync primitives and message passing. > As for 'Overlook the “async/await can be used without significant buy-in” ' > I believe Ive seen people with considerable experience/understanding of the > area > take the opposite view, usually along the lines: “Once you start going > non-blocking, > you have to non-block all the way” Right, as I mentioned overlook the pedantic argument just for the concept. While you *can* do as I mentioned rather easily, it's not a useful or scalable approach. Their suggestion is correct in reality but I only mentioned the minimal buy-in it to illustrate that existing code *could* adopt the pattern trivially whereas Rx is not simply two keywords, it's an entire framework. Ultimately they accomplish the same thing, that is asynchronous execution but use two different patterns. I'll paraphrase another source: "Rx adds a convenient way to add callbacks and manage execution." The async/await pattern is closer to the metal, it's not dealing with a sequence of observable objects, it is however manipulating execution of the explicit block of code where its applied. jlc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
