New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RACSubject => RACMutableSignal? #125
Comments
Also, I don't think |
I'm coming from a .NET background when I say this, but Reactive Extensions for .NET and JavaScript are really taking off, and a lot of .NET developers are beginning to use Rx in live projects. Personally, I think it'd be easier to understand if both Rx and RAC used similar naming conventions. Everyone familar with Reactive programming knows what a Subject is, and, for that matter, knows what a Behavior Subject is. I'd agree if you said those nouns don't exactly match the use case for those classes, but won't deviating from pre-existing naming conventions (such as the ones used in Haskell) just create confusion and a bigger learning curve? |
Isn't |
Or Overall I believe it's good to move away from the 'er'/'abable' which it's confusing by its own mean. |
I don't feel terrible about
@joshaber If we did follow a "mutable" naming convention, I would argue that specific mutable signals don't need the "mutable" qualifier in their names.
@cwharris I think this is an important point, and I don't want to discount the value of it, but Rx has some pretty ridiculous naming sometimes, which can further obfuscate the already-complex concepts (especially for newbies). A great example is our recent renaming of
@cwharris Related to my prior point, Rx and Haskell often use significantly different terminology, so .NET developers will have a significantly different lexicon from FRP developers. This was part of the motivation for renaming
@Coneko I agree that this is pretty odd, but I don't think it's a huge deal. A "subscriber" is an understandable concept, even without any "opposite" term. "Subscribable" is almost meaningless on its own.
@Coneko @thenikso Yeah, I certainly don't want to follow the signal metaphor too far. When we start using signal jargon in place of understandable terms, it only makes things more confusing. That said, I don't like |
You all make great points 👍 ❤️ I'd like to keep the design and naming conventions similar to Rx so long as it makes sense and so long as there isn't an obviously better way. So unless anyone has any objections, I'll close this.
|
As an aside, I'd also like to point out that Rx no longer uses "Subscribables" and "Subscribers", but "Observables" and "Observers", which is somewhat easier to type, and allows for catchy phrases like "composition of observables", and "observe all the things". "Listen to those signals" just doesn't roll of the tongue like "observe these sequences." IMHO, obviously ^.^ |
AFAIK, they never used subscribable/subscriber. I didn't use observable/observer originally because those are already heavily overloaded words in Cocoalandia. |
Makes sense. I'm new to Cocoa, but familiar with Rx. I didn't didn't think they used subscrib-able/er either. |
I really quite like |
Would anyone here have a strong objection against renaming Is there a compelling argument that it's not worth breaking with Rx terminology for that one (though we already did with CC @xpaulbettsx |
I'm not a big fan of To reiterate, I'm pro moving away from Rx terminology when it's clearly better. I don't think |
I always thought Subject was a stupid name. 💯 Subjects really are the "mutable variable" of Rx, so having something to that effect in the name is 🆒 |
@joshaber's point is very good. |
After reading all this, I got convinced that
|
Putting this into the 1.0 milestone, because we need some hard decision by then. |
👎 Speak now or forever hold your peace. |
|
Those are both meh to me. I'm going to go ahead and close this but we can create a new issue for any new name ideas. |
When we talked about renaming
RACSubscribable
, @jspahrsummers also brought up thatRACSubject
, too, is terrible but we struggled to come up with a not-awful alternative.But how about
RACMutableSignal
? They're mutable in the sense that users can change things about them after they're created, and they tend to be an implementation detail likeNSMutableArray
vs.NSArray
.The downside is that
RACReplayMutableSignal
/RACMutableReplaySignal
is a pretty ridiculous name.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: