You spent all those words criticizing but still didn't point out where his error was

I'm not sure that's true.....

That's definitely true

The problem isn't writing it the first time, that's easy enough. The problem is keeping it manageable and understandable; keeping like things together, so when the code needs to be changed, it isn't hard to change. It's a bit harder when the variable is spread randomly throughout the code, which reactive programming makes easy to do

Short on detail but long on words. Compare it to the Agile manifesto which has few words, but communicates the ideas very clearly. When you read that, you understand the underlying principles of agile. This manifesto has more words, but still manages to clearly get its idea across.

When it comes to the manifesto linked in the article, as you mention it is short on detail. Specifically, who doesn't want to have a responsive system? Have you ever met anyone who said, "I think I will build a website. I want it to take 15 seconds for the pages to load." Saying you want your site to be responsive is so generic as to be meaningless.

The part that really makes me laugh is the part where they say it will have no bottlenecks. That has been the goal of designers since the day of Von Neumann. He was certain he would design his computer without bottlenecks. Once again, it's something that everyone wants.

The biggest thing they have that isn't generic there is that they require message passing. That seems like a weird requirement to me, but I'm sure they have a reason.

I don't think it was the author's intention to imply that. At first I thought that too, but after reading it two or three times, I think he was trying to draw a parallel to agile methodology, as in "reactive will evolve the same way agile did." I don't think he's right, but whatever.

I've been thinking about reactive programming a lot recently because it's used a lot in Angular.js. Probably in other javascript frameworks, too. My guess is it'll become more popular in the next few years, then recede into the past (and future, for those who don't remember) if it turns out to be a bad idea.

On the surface it seems easier, because things happen automatically, without having to be explicitely defined. The part I'm struggling with is how to keep the code clean and readable with all this stuff happening automatically. There's probably a way to do it, but I haven't found it yet.

I read your paragraph twice and I literally have no idea what you are talking about

Really? Did they take that out?

I read an article recently on exactly that topic, which is probably worth quoting:

Alibaba is probably as good as any stock. If things go wrong, things go wrong.

I don't see how much has happened as far as Islamization of America. Islam is still a super-small minority in America, right? I'd bet the Hindu population is growing faster, and even that's small.....

The surprising thing is that people think this is news. I thought this is basically how every failed project went. Broken management like that is why projects fail.

I think the primary difficulty is detecting the drones. It's a little drone in a large sky, easy to hide.

This is exactly the problem 'drone shield' claims to solve.

Ok, yeah, that's where you completely went of the rails lol....

A better place to begin is by gathering information. The more information you have, the easier it will be to draw good conclusions. Otherwise you are stuck asking questions like, "why else would they do it?"

Maybe, but it's a complete fail on discoverability.

No! They are leaving the features, but focusing on making a sensible default, whereas the rest is easily discoverable!

That is how he is describing it, and it is how an ideal UI should be. Gnome on the other hand wants to make anything hard impossible, not discoverable (where discoverable means the user can figure out how to do it).