question from an outsider POV, neither Java nor Kotlin developer here: why not go further and move the burden of managing threads away from the programmer to the runtime. the runtime can dynamically allocate threads as needed instead of being configured (at compile time, i assume) by the programmer.
With CoroutineScope it is a code block (a lambda with a scope) that one or more Coroutines run in that manages resources. Doesn't make sense to call it a transaction since scopes are involved.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent talk, tysm
question from an outsider POV, neither Java nor Kotlin developer here: why not go further and move the burden of managing threads away from the programmer to the runtime. the runtime can dynamically allocate threads as needed instead of being configured (at compile time, i assume) by the programmer.
by the way, i'm a fan of suspending functions. great work. very clear API.
That's pretty much what happens if you use one of the built in dispatchers. You can override the thread configuration for that but you don't have to.
Well, in the good old scary days you used fork ...
very informative talk
Amazing talk!
So map and flatMap is bad unless you use a flowable?
Since the Flowable handles backpressure then your statement is super correct without the question mark.
Are Kotlin Flows a high level concurrency model?
36:54 ... why not call it "transaction" instead of "coroutineScope"?
With CoroutineScope it is a code block (a lambda with a scope) that one or more Coroutines run in that manages resources. Doesn't make sense to call it a transaction since scopes are involved.
How is flow different from Reactive Programming Mono & Flux?