> When you say that he's mocking Microsoft engineers, is that because of the Visual Basic comments?
"In Redmond, like a lot of people talk about code but don't write it, so I think Microsoft can only come back if, you know, they start writing more code."
> And I don't think he's being dismissive of reactive programming, he's dismissive of that definition, which is too broad.
The definition seems pretty reasonable to me. It immediately resonated with me; it described a principle I had been trying to achieve in some code I was writing recently. The idea of having changes automatically propagate through your model as a data-flow network is a pretty noticeable contrast to other ways of programming.
> He was one of the main proponents of Reactive programming inside Microsoft.
Yeah I guess I don't have this context. But without it, the talk just rubbed me wrong.
Erik was fired which is unbelievable; it's like firing Feynman. He obviously wasn't happy with Ballmer or the culture, and frankly neither were most of the MS employees in that audience. Ballmer's gone and suddenly everything MS does is becoming open sourced, for example. "A miracle". And just because quantum might sound cool, naming a razor blade after it doesn't make it quantum physics.
>"In Redmond, like a lot of people talk about code but don't write it, so I think Microsoft can only come back if, you know, they start writing more code."
It's like you've never worked at a tech shop with a sales team. Also keep in mind that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously or literally. If his audience wasn't terribly offended by it, why are you?
"In Redmond, like a lot of people talk about code but don't write it, so I think Microsoft can only come back if, you know, they start writing more code."
> And I don't think he's being dismissive of reactive programming, he's dismissive of that definition, which is too broad.
The definition seems pretty reasonable to me. It immediately resonated with me; it described a principle I had been trying to achieve in some code I was writing recently. The idea of having changes automatically propagate through your model as a data-flow network is a pretty noticeable contrast to other ways of programming.
> He was one of the main proponents of Reactive programming inside Microsoft.
Yeah I guess I don't have this context. But without it, the talk just rubbed me wrong.