posted by AdamSpeight2008

C

posted by Charles

Erik's team is the most productive team of developers I've ever seen. It's hard to believe how much great code they crank out in a 24 hour period. I can't talk about what they are currenly working on, but you can imagine it will be quite excellent!

One of the coolest things about Erik's team is that there is no ego maniacal madness hovering about. These folks are just pure engineers, humble, creative, passionate and brilliant.

C

posted by Charles

onsciousness"

posted by yozik

posted by head.in.the.box

Now I'm thinking that IO<IO<T>> can actually model observable collections (not related to Rx, implementing INotifyCollectionChanged interface) with events being 'element is inside collection at specific position'. Then we can get LINQ to observable collections for free.

posted by Gregory81

posted by RafaelHTS

posted by Wes Dyer

It would be very helpful to look at some samples. Also, it looks like the discussion is based on embedded assumption that observations of the events are direct. I wonder how it all change if observations were indirect - for example when you are trying to reconstruct flow of events based on gathering clues. Stream of clues is directly observable (and ordered in time), while pointers to the event stream of interest can be to the past or future times or be just durations without definite starting time points. Would Rx be useful in this case?

posted by sokhaty

(@Charles: I find humbleness a common trait in great programmers (and its opposite detractive). The slight arrogance afforded by someone who has crafted a superior solution doesn't hurt though (e.g. Erik bashing the mishmash that is the Java Iterator interface vs the simplicity of IO, and its IE duality.)

posted by exoteric

 

exoteric wrote

(@Charles: I find humbleness a common trait in great programmers (and its opposite detractive). )

 

Is the trait an effect because they do programming?

An effect of being humbled by the compiler and/or runtime returning error and/or exceptions.

A great programmer thinks about problem, analyses it. 

 So is Programming a subset of Philosophy?  

An observation of some people (particularly non-programmers) I know (no names) struggle with the basic concepts that programmers take almost for granted.

They make logical fallacy of 

Both X and Y, I believe both to be True that this also implies Z must also be True.

That the same Effect (this happened) could be the result of different Causes. 

Dealing with unknowns, they struggle accepting I don't knows;

"Where is {x}?"

"I don't know"

"What do mean you don't know?"

"I don't know where {x}  is?"

You can replace with any question

.They think you're lying and do know, and then construct a conspiracy to support, that belief.

This suggests (to me) that Psychology also has role to play.

So how do you define a great programmer?

posted by AdamSpeight2008

}

;) 

posted by Richard.Hein

posted by dream

Thanks for the kind words. Back to the bakery now, the oven is heating .

posted by bdesmet

IObservable<Person> peopleEnteringRoom = ...;

class Person
{
  public IObservable<object> LeaveRoom;
  ...
} 

In this case, I don't have any information to communicate when a person leaves the room, that's why I chose IObservable<object>. I've implemented a person leaving as such:

person.LeaveRoom.OnNext(null);
person.LeaveRoom.OnCompleted(); 

Is this the correct, or recommended, way to implement this?

posted by Tom Lokhorst

I think some concrete examples would help. Also I think I need to sleep on it and try again in the morning

posted by gbrayut

That way, questions about coincidence of events can be addressed simply by determining order of events.  Sliding windows are also trivially made by slicing a time stream.

posted by bfair