[no_wizard]

I always found observables need better nomenclature.

I know its not anyones fault (RxJS is amazing), but it does seem to invoke some gray area in the brain, thinking observables would do more heavy lifting around change tracking of inputs / sources, when its not that straightforward. They more rightly should be called SubscriptionStreams maybe

I think its always been somewhat poorly named, based on how often I've had to explain the concept to other developers.

[throwaway46281]

Huh? It's called observable because it can be observed (that's what "-able" means). If it were actually meant to observe something (as you say), it would have been named "observer." But it's not - it's the callback that's the observer.

Also observables are more like streams than arrays.

[no_wizard]

I don't think I'm entirely out of band to say there could be a better way of naming them, like why not call them SubscribableStream.

Saying its an observable invokes a messy gray area in people's brains. I know this because I've had to explain observables to co-workers more times than I can count in my career (I'm a big fan of RxJS, I didn't mean what I said as a dismissal), and I like them for async work vs promises in many many cases, but the nomenclature does not invoke easy understanding

[troupo]

Because RxJS made at least one huge mistake: it made its observables lazy.

When does it start? How do you deal with oversubscription? Late starts? Double subscriptions?

On top of that streams are always a pain in the butt to debug.

The fifteen million obtuse methods/operators didn't help either (I see there are significantly fewer now).

And to remind you: it took the author of RxJava several months to understand the programming model: https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/811561007504093184

[cassepipe]

Maybe it would be easier for you (and your colleagues) if the function to "observe" observables was called... observe, instead of "subscribe ?

[no_wizard]

not particularly, I think it would make it more confusing.

When I break it down to folks explaining its stream processing over iterables or async work and you subscribe (and can unsubscribe) a pipeline that runs over that stream, people get it quickly.

When I say you can "observe a stream" people start getting other connotations, for some reason. I have ran into this over and over and over. Smart people too, not talking about just juniors here

[cassepipe]

Indeed !

`observers` do exist in RxJs by the way: https://rxjs.dev/guide/observer

[WorldMaker]

I think it is definitely a learning curve thing: when teaching/learning Observables it can help to use a name like EventStreams or PushStreams. (An RxJS "competitor" is named XStream for this among other reasons.) Observable is a simple English word and the meaning of the English word is complicatedly "shadowed" by what the tech means by it.

On the other hand, on the other side of the learning curve, Observable is a great name. It's a simple English word that you can say and write a million times (and you will need to when working with them) without extra PascalCase or things like that. Also, when you look at the overall "family" that Observables fit into, it is a name that fits the family: Iterable/AsyncIterable ("PullStreams") versus Observable ("PushStreams"). (In .NET LINQ the family uses Enumerable/AsyncEnumerable and also extends to Queryable and the strangely named but makes sense in context Qbservable. [QueryableObservable; often pronounced like "cube-servable".]) As a family of tools that all generally work well together and are essentially related in a "four quadrant" way, it helps that they all have a nice -able names that sound related.