Should we have a [reactive-programming] tag?

Question

In computing, reactive programming is a programming paradigm oriented around data flows and the propagation of change. This means that it should be possible to express static or dynamic data flows with ease in the programming languages used, and that the underlying execution model will automatically propagate changes through the data flow.

The tag reactive-programming was recently created for this question. The asker originally created the tags rxjs and socket.io for the question, but I removed them in an edit as I didn't think tags should be created without a good case. My edit prompted the asker to create reactive-programming instead. I don't know anything about this programming paradigm which is why I've come here to ask.

14 questions currently match reactive is:question and are tagged with the names of various frameworks (system.reactive, react.js etc).

We have the tags oop (discussed recently here) and functional-programming. The reactive programming paradigm seems to be more "meta" as it can be applied in both object oriented and functional programming.

Answer 1

reactive-programming no longer exists.

The question mentioned "frp", so I edited the question to use the existing frp tag.

I don't know lickity-split about reactive programming, but everything I've seen about it seems to refer to it as "functional", even when it's used in object-oriented languages.

If there is such a thing as object-oriented reactive-programming, then I suggest we use reactive-programming for all reactive-programming questions and synonymize frp into reactive-programming. But if there isn't, then frp should do.

Someone who knows more about reactive programming should chime in and let us know whether or not we should ever consider needing both tags.

Answer 2

I'm actually far more concerned about the removal of socket.io. It seems to have been a legitimately created tag. socket.io is a realtime application framework. We have a history of allowing library/framework tags, so I would like to hear some justification for its removal before I go add it back to the question...