I do not agree with all points in the article:
- Ben Lesh wanted badly that the Observable becomes a standard in Javascript, once realized that this is not going to take place, some frustration took place
- Ben Lesh describes Rxjs as: 'Loadash for Events' , which is to my opinion a not deep enough understanding of Rxjs wich is based on Monad, something else than Loadash
- Ben Lesh took the lead on Rxjs over from Matthew Podwysocki (Microsoft) and did not get the history from where Rxjs is coming from (Haskell, LINQ, Rx.net, Rxjs), which is crucial for a deep understanding of Rxjs
Medium? Was that not a DEV article, actually?
Also, if you could please expand your points a bit more in detail, as it's not very clear what you are trying to prove.
For example, now that the Observable is actually on its standardisation path, how is this frustration thing suddenly becoming a topic?
Actually, what I find frustrating is how different route this proposal is taking from RxJS itself.
Framing RxJS as a "Lodash for Events" may have been a good choice when Lodash was popular and people could draw a comparison. Jumping straight into the algebraic types Observables have been modelled after could have been overkill for many, don't you think?