Java Virtual Thread: Is Reactive Programming Dead?

This video is to explain the fundamental difference between Virtual threads and Reactive programming & how Reactive programming is different, why Virtual threads do NOT replace reactive programming!

[armynyus]

Thanks for this. The current backlash against RP is absolutely insane, total step back. As if noobs, who are happy that their SINGLE messages back and forth can be handled behind the scenes w/o blocking, took over. And the frameworks follow, desperate for adoption rates. The truth is that there is no, zero, alternative to reactive programming, when having to handle a large number of non steady/predictable events over a distributed system, in a fairly optimized manner.

[sadiulhakim]

I am not saying anything is dead, but we can achieve the same performance with virtual threads. Also, Virtual threads are part of JVM itself. It is native java. If you familiar with Reactive Programming, keep using it, no issue. Nothing dies easily. Company keeps using them. Even java 8 is being used in most of the companies.

[qingtianwang]

Reactive programming is STILL dead IF you are dealing with Mono's most of the time. The speaker here is talking about a completely different problem domain than what we are usually talking about when comparing Virtual Thread and Reactive model.
The problem with Reactive model is that folks are using it when they are not dealing with "streams". Even with an async message system like Kafka, the problem domain can still be "transactionally" driven by individual messages, in which case using Reactive model is just pointless even without the Virtual Thread in the picture. As one of the Reactive lib creators mentioned in a Reactor speech, something like "if you are mostly dealing with Mono's instead of Flux's, then you are in the wrong room. Go to the next room where the Virtual Thread folks are talking."