|
The MVVM design pattern has been around for quite a while now. It has a lot of strengths when done correctly. But, I believe the time has come to recognize that MVVM has a lot of shortcomings that point to its demise. Already? I only just learned what the second 'V' was for. Now I'll never learn about that last 'M'
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the performance bottleneck he speaks of with Angular is quickly becoming moot as the whole loop thing is being phased out. And not every framework relies on that. Granted, it does increase processing time, but using an MV* framework isn't nearly as bad as this guy makes it out to be. To me it sounds like he's ill-experienced.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
From the article:
"It sounds great. And when it works it is. But that’s the main problem, it hardly ever works well."
"You try it on some small application and you get excited. Like a gateway drug, it lures you in. And when you finally go to implement it on some larger application, you find out that it really doesn’t scale all that well."
This describes a lot of things even outside design patterns. Many things which work great on a one-off test with highly dedicated people end up being terrible when applied generally. A big reason is that with the small experiment, everything can be controlled. Things quickly unravel beyond that. (Confirmation bias also plays a huge part--you want it to work and dismiss or ignore the problems.)
|
|
|
|
|
What he's really talking about is Angular, and how it handles data binding, and that's a problem for Angular not a problem with the underlying MVVM design pattern. I've been using Kendo UI from Telerik which also uses the MVVM pattern without any problems.
He's found certain issues with how Angular implements MVVM and conflated these to the wider design pattern itself.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly.
Speaking as someone who uses MVVM for desktop applications, I like it a lot. That's not for what Mr. Bush would write off as "religious reasons" but simply because it's the best pattern out there right now. Five or ten years from now, I'm sure we'll all be using something different - that's the nature of the game - but I'm certainly not going to abandon it just because someone's having a few issues with a framework.
Do we know if those issues lie with Angular or just his implementation of it, anyway? Does he just have too many watchers going on at once? I can't really comment as I don't use Angular but if it is such an issue, why is this the first time that I've heard anyone say that Angular doesn't work with MVVM? It's certainly supposed to and many people seem to use it that way.
All in all, a very poorly considered piece and I hereby suggest that we drop HTML and shut down the internet just in case I ever have to read a similar one.
|
|
|
|
|
Most MVVM problems can be solved with a Mirror 
|
|
|
|
|
May be the author didn't reflect on that thought.
|
|
|
|
|
That guy takes issues with Angular and makes it seem like the pattern is to blame.
I have news for him. It's not. All implementations have issues, but the pattern is not the problem.
He is an idiot that should not be programming.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Well., mostly, because MVVM looks like a spring or Slinky...
|
|
|
|
|
I opened that page, and saw that he's got a certificate from "scrum alliance csm" or something like that.
I had to close that page immediately as there's little chance of him knowing anything meaningful about development.
|
|
|
|
|
As the very first line of history is incorrect, I see not much point in progressing further...
"MVVM was originally created by John Gossman to support the XAML syntax used to create Windows™ desktop applications and Silver Light applications."
Should read "MVVM is an adaption of the Model View Presenter pattern, originally documented by Martin Fowler, to the XAML architecture of WPF and Silverlight applications."
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft is facing further legal action over the handling of its free upgrade offer, both at home and abroad. There must be blood in the water: the sharks are circling
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't about fairness, but a bunch of lawyers sensing a big pay day for very little up-front effort. Do note that if they get class action status, the customer will get nothing (like a 10% off coupon) while the lawyers will walk away with millions.
(FWIW, I believe that class action lawsuits are unconstitutional. They change individual rights to collective rights and deny the defendant the right to confront its accusers. Plus, it's all about lawyers paying off lawyers.)
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court has (repeatedly) upheld the constitutionality of class action lawsuits (though there's been some debate on matters of standing). One only has the constitutional right to confront one's accuser in criminal court, not in civil court; class actions are a civil matter. Without allowing consumers to be joined in class actions how will you disincentivize corporations from committing low-level fraud (at the individual level; in the aggregate such fraud can be massive), where it is not economically feasible for individuals to bring their tiny claims to court?
Regarding fairness, if I was defrauded for $10, and ended up with a 10% off voucher pursuant to a class action, that might be something on the order of fair compensation (I've never seen that happen, usually you get a small check in the mail). It does stink a bit that the lawyers filing the suit tend to reap any punitive damages, which depending on the size of the class can be north of enormous.
|
|
|
|
|
r_hyde wrote: One only has the constitutional right to confront one's accuser in criminal court
I realize that, however I do think the same principle applies. The inability for the target of the lawsuit to cross examine those claiming actual harm is a real problem. There was recently a class action suit which stumped me because I couldn't identify ANYONE actually claiming harm.
r_hyde wrote: Without allowing consumers to be joined in class actions how will you disincentivize corporations from committing low-level fraud (at the individual level;
The problem is that all too often there is no actual malfeasance of the corporation. Further, class action suits often not only fail to compensate the consumer, many such suits preclude the consumer from seeking redress separately (sometimes, you are notified very late that you can opt out. Other times, however, a pretrial settlement is done which explicitly precludes further action.)
In a related vein, sometimes the complaints of the class aren't entirely aligned.
Besides, wouldn't corporations be more afraid of thousands of cases taking place in small claims? Aren't class action suits to their advantage, not the consumer?
Years back, Honda got sued for transmissions failing just after the warranty period. My warranty was extended by six months, the lawyers walked about with several tens of millions.
Now, to be fair, there was a class action against a credit card company which actually resulted in plaintiffs getting large checks, me included, with the lawyers being fairly, but not outrageously, compensated. Ironically, I knew nothing about this lawsuit until I received the check. That same week, my best friend also received a check as a result of the same suit. He hadn't received notice either.
Perhaps one solution is to restrict the amount of money a lawyer can receive to costs plus a small percentage.
(FWIW, here's an interesting article: http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/Class_Action_Study.pdf[^])
|
|
|
|
|
I was citing fraud as an example, not intending to imply that fraud is the only legitimate application of the class action, or that the defendant in a class action must necessarily have committed a fraud. You are probably incorrect in suggesting that corporations would be worse off facing thousands of small claims rather than a class action, for multiple reasons. That any significant number of individuals would successfully bring claims is fantasy: it would cost the individual far more in terms of time and money to bring a small claim than they are likely to get in judgement on average (assuming they are successful, which is itself unlikely). Without being able to prove negligence or malfeasance, which usually would require showing a pattern (something difficult to do on an individual basis), most such small claims would probably be dismissed out of hand. Even if 100% of consumers affected by a corporation's minor negligence or malfeasance brought small claims, the corporation would likely be able to settle most if not all out of court for what would amount to pocket change, whereas in a class action they would face punitive damages on top of making the complainants whole. No, corporations don't prefer class actions. Much more profitable is the alternative, which is perchance to face the occasional individual claim, easily swatted like so many flies.
Also, anecdotal evidence is a poor sort of evidence; that you can cite specific cases where the application of class action was (possibly) egregious does not constitute (to my mind) a compelling argument against the class action as a legal instrument.
|
|
|
|
|
See the link. it clearly shows that there is more than anecdotal evidence that class action is largely ineffective. Class action attorneys will claim otherwise, those looking at them are skeptical.
r_hyde wrote:
Also, anecdotal evidence is a poor sort of evidence; that you can cite specific cases where the application of class action was (possibly) egregious does not constitute (to my mind) a compelling argument against the class action as a legal instrument.
Likewise, stating theory or a desired result does not a compelling argument make.
|
|
|
|
|
Today at NodeSummit, we are delighted to share the first experimental implementation of ChakraCore interpreter and runtime on x64 Linux and OS X 10.9+, along with experimental Node.js with ChakraCore (Node-ChakraCore) on x64 Linux. Now they have another JS engine they can ignore, just like the Windows devs
|
|
|
|
|
This is pretty interesting, because there have been times in the past where V8 issues caused problems in Node, but they didn't get fixed quickly because the V8 team was understandably mostly concerned with bugs affecting V8 in Chrome.
So a fast JS runtime with at least semi-official Node support could see some popularity.
And FWIW, I've found TypeScript + Node to result in a decidedly less-than-horrible development experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like Chaka Kahn[^]
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I was originally trying to go with "I feel for you" for the blurb, but my brain couldn't make it work.
Great minds, etc. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
CharkraCore let me rock you, let me rock you ChakraCore, let me rock you ChakraCore that's all I wanna do.
ChakraCore let me rock you, let me rock you ChakraCore, let me rock you ChakraCore, because I feel for you.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
JS++ is built with engineering principles: strong, solid foundations via a type system that can leverage the full JavaScript ecosystem while guaranteeing your types will be correct at both compile and runtime. - See more at: http://sdtimes.com/the-case-for-js-plus-plus/#sthash.zm0FJxCI.dpuf Yet another attempt to fix the unfixable
|
|
|
|
|
It looks pretty not bad, but I think TypeScript has stolen what little thunder JS++ might have had.
Now if only Anders would take a break from TypeScript and write a Turbo Pascal to JS compiler...
|
|
|
|
|
That remains to be seen. TypeScript's "type erasure" vs JS++'s "type guarantee" would be a big reason to use JS++ over TypeScript.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
