Expert to Expert: Erik Meijer and Butler Lampson - Abstraction, Security and Embodiment
E2E: Erik Meijer and Wes Dyer - Reactive Framework (Rx) Under the Hood 1 of 2
Description
You've already learned a great deal about Erik Meijer's latest programming creation, Rx, right here on Channel 9 (here
and
here, to be precise).
Well, wouldn't it be great to get the two key minds behind Rx in one place with one whiteboard? Yes, of course it would! Enter Software Developer extraordinaire and language compiler geek Wes Dyer and programming language design guru and LINQ co-creator Erik Meijer to dig into the "Live Labs Reactive Framework (Rx)" or ".NET Reactive Framework (Rx)". So, let's be honest here. The official name of this great technology has not been determined. But, it's just a name and the name is so much less interesting than what this technology enables and will enable in the future for software developers. So, forget about the exact branding of Rx. Just think of it as, well, Rx until the marketing people come up with an official naming scheme (that most likely will not be as cool as Rx, but c'est la vie...).
Here, Erik and Wes focus on the core ideas behind Rx and dig into the geeky details of this observer-based programming model. Rx is deep (as in profound), as you must have gathered by now. Erik, of course, keeps the theoretical basis of all this squarely front and center so we understand the relationship between principles and practice.
Enjoy!
Well, wouldn't it be great to get the two key minds behind Rx in one place with one whiteboard? Yes, of course it would! Enter Software Developer extraordinaire and language compiler geek Wes Dyer and programming language design guru and LINQ co-creator Erik Meijer to dig into the "Live Labs Reactive Framework (Rx)" or ".NET Reactive Framework (Rx)". So, let's be honest here. The official name of this great technology has not been determined. But, it's just a name and the name is so much less interesting than what this technology enables and will enable in the future for software developers. So, forget about the exact branding of Rx. Just think of it as, well, Rx until the marketing people come up with an official naming scheme (that most likely will not be as cool as Rx, but c'est la vie...).
Here, Erik and Wes focus on the core ideas behind Rx and dig into the geeky details of this observer-based programming model. Rx is deep (as in profound), as you must have gathered by now. Erik, of course, keeps the theoretical basis of all this squarely front and center so we understand the relationship between principles and practice.
Enjoy!
Share
Download
Download this episode
- High Quality MP4 (476.8 MB)
- Mid Quality MP4 (903.2 MB)
- High Quality WMV (772.4 MB)
- MP3 (19.7 MB)
- Low Quality MP4 (243.4 MB)
- Mid Quality WMV (149.2 MB)
- WMV (194.0 B)
More episodes in this series
E2E: Erik Meijer and Wes Dyer - Reactive Framework (Rx) Under the Hood 2 of 2
Related episodes
E2E: Erik Meijer and Wes Dyer - Reactive Framework (Rx) Under the Hood 2 of 2
Expert to Expert: Brian Beckman and Erik Meijer - Inside the .NET Reactive Framework (Rx)
Erik Meijer: Rx in 15 Minutes - Rx is Here!!!!!
Announcing the Official Release of Rx!
Jeffrey Van Gogh and Bart De Smet: Inside System.Interactive
Bart De Smet, Jafar Hussain, Matthew Podwysocki: Pragmatic Rx
Rx and Netflix
Bart De Smet: Rx and Cortana
Checking In with Erik Meijer: Erik Meijer
Erik Meijer, Immo Landwerth, and Andrew Arnott: Immutable Collections for .NET
The Discussion
-
aL_ ~1 hour of Rx internals? day: made.
what was that i said about hardcore dev content on c9 beeing thin lately? sure shut me up
now if only vs2010 beta2 would drop, happiness would be complete
-
exoteric Still watching. I must say the dualization w/ Brian Beckman was somewhat more clear but this is a nice addition, even if the start at least was a bit messy. And I like the implementation detail here with disposition etc.
-
tomkirbygreen Come on Microsoft, quit with the teasing and ship the bits
I really want to get my paws on this stuff! -
Charles You will!! And if you have even more fundamental knowledge in your mind when you use your hands, well, you'll really "get" it!!
C -
ivan_ I can't figure out why MS marketing people renaming technologies that target mostly developers.
First developers learn codename, than everybody gets confused with new name. Then regular people think one thing, developers the other. Seems like a lot of waste and redundant effort on the part of marketing. Such as WPF\e. Nice and clear name, no... it was changed to Silverlight, and then everybody was confused what does it have to do with WPF and .NET, and MS has to put extra millions into marketing explaning what Silverlight is.
Keep Rx!!! it is way cooler. That is my say!!!
-
Charles We will keep Rx, but "Reactive Framework" will not be in the final naming scheme (there is one framework here, .NET....). So, think of Rx as an extenstion to .NET Framework. Yep, "Reactive Extensions" (just like Parallel Extensions for .NET, this is Reactive Extensions for .NET). So, the .NET marketing people are happy. Customers aren't confused. And, we get to keep a really cool name, Rx (which stands for Reactive (x)Extensions).
What do you think? Erik and team spend their time on coding and innovating, not naming and marketing - we have highly trained professionals who crank on naming and dealing with the incredibly complex legal adventure that is naming a product..... They are underappreciated, to be honest. But, yeah, naming is hard and we engineering types are not very good at it (see, I came up with ".NET Reactive Framework", which is just a bad idea all around. Sorry about that.
Erik and Wes came up with the super cool Rx,
which should make the cut since it's an abbreviation, but who knows....)C
-
aL_ Are these the same people that came up with the name ".net 3.5 sp1", a version of the.net framework that uses version 2.0 of the clr and version 3.0 of the c# language?
if so im not sure what they are highly trained at, but naming cant be it
imo engineers come up with the cool names, Rx, longhorn, blackcomb, (nintendo) revolution.
silverlight is ok i guess, its more than just wpf after all, but it doesnt have the same impact as "flash"
now bing.. thats a good name. to bad the search engine is crippeled everywhere but in the us
-
Charles Done...
-
ivan_ Bing is not targeted at developers only. I was talking more in terms of .Net 3.5 SP1 type naming
Which is not bad But things like
Microsoft SQL Server Business Intelligence Development Studio - I think it is kind of long. It takes me almost a minute to say it and hours to explain what it is. It is just Visual Studio for SSAS
. But, hey, I am not a naming expert. I'll leave to MS
marketing people -
Moemeka ~1 hour of Rx internals? day: made.
...
throwing IllogicalReferenceToCodeException();
-
Ralph Trickey Can you do me a favor and call it Linq to Events? I can explain that to my boss and co-workers, but Reactive Extensions is going to draw a bunch of blank looks. I know it's not as 'cool' as Rx, but it's a lot more friendly.
Can we do some more deep dives like this?
-
Jarle Stabell Thanks for these amazing episodes! Not often the Axiom of Choice gets mentioned in a software developer context.
Please do not retire yet Erik!
-
hrmilo Two guys each repeating the same thing four times before moving to the next concept. That was a painful 45 minutes. Could've been five...
-
Charles Thanks for the feedback, but... are you kidding me? Come on.....
C
-
ramooon I agree with Ralph Trickey: "Linq to Events" would be a great name !
-
sjhuk Cheers guys.
-
MLH1138 An incomprehinsible video with much white-board scribbling.
Dr. Meijer is usually so good at explaining these things, but here he fails and assumes we've all got the math know-how to follow him.
Still, nice shirt!