Is this still the case? I guess with it hitting 1.0 it's more likely now, but I'd still be interested to hear if anyone's had much experience with this up until now.
In the same page you can find a list of compliant implementations like AKKA or RxJava, so you can easily check out one of them and see how they are implementing these concepts under the hood. The general purpose is good, it makes the switch from framework X to Y easier with the declared goal of provide a standard for asynchronous stream processing with non-blocking back pressure, but, as said before, there's nothing more than that.
About the production, well, some of the listed libraries are widely used, so I guess there are a lot of people actually using this concept in production.
Then, if you want to go further, you can search for Duality, that seems an evolution of Reactive Programming and Reactive Streams.
I think this convention is one for the future and this release marks the start of adoption. I think the hope is that more implementations will come in the future and one goal is to allow the simple connection of reactive streams and allow the building complex distributed systems.
Also interestingly it looks like this concept might make it into jdk9 as Flow - https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/iss...
non-blocking back pressure
How does that even relate? All I can think of is sticking a potato into a car exhaust.
And if you want "Erlang validation" it's hard to beat WhatsApp's $19B acquisition. (I doubt that Facebook will be releasing any open source Erlang code any time soon!)
So what's the deal? If you believe in the http://www.reactivemanifesto.org/ wouldn't you be better off just biting the bullet and learning http://www.erlang.org/?
It's always a good thing when a mainstream language gets better - it positively impacts a lot more people who don't get to use niche languages for their work.
EDIT: My grammar and spelling suck first thing in the morning.
"Phil Wadler and Simon Marlow worked on a type system for over a year and the results were published in [20]. The results of the project were somewhat disappointing. To start with, only a subset of the language was type-checkable, the major omission being the lack of process types and of type checking inter-process messages."
http://learnyousomeerlang.com/types-or-lack-thereof#for-type...
Having control over how to fuse a chain of functions is very interesting. Do any of the implementations allow use of mutable state when fusing a chain of functions with the same signature.
