"In Redmond, like a lot of people talk about code but don't write it, so I think Microsoft can only come back if, you know, they start writing more code."

> And I don't think he's being dismissive of reactive programming, he's dismissive of that definition, which is too broad.

The definition seems pretty reasonable to me. It immediately resonated with me; it described a principle I had been trying to achieve in some code I was writing recently. The idea of having changes automatically propagate through your model as a data-flow network is a pretty noticeable contrast to other ways of programming.

> He was one of the main proponents of Reactive programming inside Microsoft.

Yeah I guess I don't have this context. But without it, the talk just rubbed me wrong.