Bookmarked for later use, I'm sure it will come in handy, thanks for posting.I wish it was hosted on GitHub though, but given that it's backed by Microsoft, I can see why not.
Is there any practical example? I've browsed through the source and it seems like a framework to provide asynchronous queries over arbitrary datasets. Am I right?
This is very much the definition of a code dump: a single file, not following any standard ruby code conventions - not even naming conventions (it would be called "rx" otherwise), tests within that file, misformatted code. snake_cased and camedBacked variables mixed. It monkey-patches Enumerable and uses class variables. `gets` at the end of the file, to keep the Windows console open, rendering the whole thing unusable as a library. Also, the author clearly doesn't know that you don't need ".rb" when requiring files. Last commit on December 22, 2012.
Could people please have a look at the source before posting stuff here? This is not a project to be taken seriously and a waste of time. "Someone at Microsoft was playing with Ruby" is the only valuable thing you can get out of it.
I tweeted about this release, and they specifically asked me for contributions, saying they would love help with making the project more Ruby like, actually following conventions. I told them that I don't work on anything Microsoft related, for personal ethical reasons, and they actually handled that response quite gracefully.
That's interesting.. Where do you draw the line as far as Microsoft relatedness goes? Is your motivation more to make sure you never contribute to Microsoft goals, or is it actually never to be exposed to Microsoft technology yourself?
Is there something Microsoft affected you personally with or is it their business practices in general?
Microsoft attempted to destroy humanity's crowning achievement (so far): the World Wide Web. Totally unforgivable.
Now: people sometimes use Microsoft products, and they're often beginners. I will write software that runs on Windows, as that's often the people who need help the most.
But contributing directly to a Microsoft product is too much for me.
Well, stop judging the Microsoft of today with the one of yesterday. Many of us worker bees never went through that time period, and we really are just trying to build better things.
Your management hasn't really changed. I grew up with MS in the 80s and 90s -- I'm not quick to forgive a monopoly that set the whole industry back by 10 years.
The peon actively chose to work there and participate in Microsoft's attempts to dismantle any competition in any field they enter through highly questionable tactics.
Such cynicism and paranoia just breeds an equal amount of such on our side. It makes it that much harder for those of us who wish to engage and do good in the OSS community.
Rather weak response. You could also have said why you think Microsoft either hasn't changed, or that regardless of having changed hasn't earned their respect yet.
This goes beyond being 'not ruby-like', as it shows bad craftsmanship (e.g. mixed identifier case, bad indentation, unrunnable code). You don't need help by others for that.
The pull request sat in limbo until just over a week ago when Matt asked me to sign the Microsoft open source contributor agreement, which I haven't got around to yet.
Unfortunately I don't hold much hope for the library in its current state.
The fact that you have to sign a contributor agreement is cause enough to leave it alone or fork it. I read through your commit comments, read "Please sign this agreement" and thought to myself "this is why Microsoft is dying. They just can't join the rest of us here in the present."
I think it's important to note that Ruby was just one target of the many ports for ReactiveExtensions: node, jquery, mootools, vanilla js, Obj-C, etc.
The code very much looks like C# to me. It echos C# in both OOP style and organization: There are multiple classes per file (allowed in Ruby but not generally conventional). There are implicit Disposable interfaces everywhere -- I guarantee that somewhere there's C# code that says:
class MutableDisposable : Disposable
and so on.
Also, class variables.
This doesn't look like a good-faith attempt at becoming involved in the Ruby community, but rather a C# port that was assigned to someone who had just enough Ruby experience to pull the code over.
I supposed that makes it somewhat understandable? It's clumsy, but it looks to me like the result of some PM or tech lead up in Redmond deciding that not porting ReactiveExtensions to Ruby was worse than a clumsy port to Ruby.
29 comments
[ 352 ms ] story [ 3082 ms ] threadBut yeah, most stuff ends up on Codeplex.
Could people please have a look at the source before posting stuff here? This is not a project to be taken seriously and a waste of time. "Someone at Microsoft was playing with Ruby" is the only valuable thing you can get out of it.
Is there something Microsoft affected you personally with or is it their business practices in general?
Now: people sometimes use Microsoft products, and they're often beginners. I will write software that runs on Windows, as that's often the people who need help the most.
But contributing directly to a Microsoft product is too much for me.
Now: people sometimes visit Germany, and they're often just tourists. I will build things for Germans, as that makes me money.
But contributing directly to Germany is too much for me.
Such cynicism and paranoia just breeds an equal amount of such on our side. It makes it that much harder for those of us who wish to engage and do good in the OSS community.
Now the thread is just worthless.
Even if the method were named sanely and consistently `Observable::on_error`, I still don't want to write code like the above.
BTW, I don't see any class variables in the re-opened Enumerable module.
Yes, the code looks like it is directly taken from Java/C#.
PR here: https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions/Rx.rb/pull/1
The pull request sat in limbo until just over a week ago when Matt asked me to sign the Microsoft open source contributor agreement, which I haven't got around to yet.
Unfortunately I don't hold much hope for the library in its current state.
It's mostly just sad, because I had so much enthusiasm for the library when I first found it which has now simply dissipated. Oh well.
The code very much looks like C# to me. It echos C# in both OOP style and organization: There are multiple classes per file (allowed in Ruby but not generally conventional). There are implicit Disposable interfaces everywhere -- I guarantee that somewhere there's C# code that says:
and so on.Also, class variables.
This doesn't look like a good-faith attempt at becoming involved in the Ruby community, but rather a C# port that was assigned to someone who had just enough Ruby experience to pull the code over.
I supposed that makes it somewhat understandable? It's clumsy, but it looks to me like the result of some PM or tech lead up in Redmond deciding that not porting ReactiveExtensions to Ruby was worse than a clumsy port to Ruby.