| The paper explicitly states that it’s about Functional Relational Programming, so that’s verifiably correct. I’m not sure if I can agree, though. > It actually doesnt have much to do with "reactive" programming model as we know it today What would you say is the ”reactive” model as we know it today? If you asked me what FRP is, I’d tell you about Functional Reactive Programming. Maybe I’d point you to Conal’s writings[0] or something like Your Mouse is a Database[1]. Andre Staltz did a nice writeup on how it’s useful to think of FRP in more broader terms than the original definition would require[2]: > it would make sense to talk about "functional reactive programming" as a paradigm or an idea where you build applications using listenable event streams (or "signals"), creating and composing them using pure functions For me, that’s the spirit of FRP. And when I read Out of the Tarpit, that’s exactly what jumps at me. The paper seems to describe data that’s changing over time, and other data being derived from those such that when the original data changes, so does the derived one. That’s pretty much precisely Functional Reactive Programming to me, even if the words are different. You might have another sense of the words in mind; I’d like to understand what you think, and why. [0]: http://conal.net/papers/push-pull-frp/
[1]: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2169076
[2]: https://medium.com/@andrestaltz/why-i-cannot-say-frp-but-i-just-did-d5ffaa23973b
|