Futurescale, Inc. PureMVC Home

The PureMVC Framework Code at the Speed of Thought


Over 10 years of community discussion and knowledge are maintained here as a read-only archive.

New discussions should be taken up in issues on the appropriate projects at https://github.com/PureMVC

Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: 4-things-to-hate-about-puremvc ???  (Read 12898 times)
eco_bach
Courseware Beta
Sr. Member
***
Posts: 81


View Profile Email
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:40:27 »

Anyone care to comment reply on this post?
http://www.techper.net/2008/10/05/4-things-to-hate-about-puremvc/
Logged
Jason MacDonald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 243


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2008, 01:41:24 »

You could write a post about, "4 things I hate about..." on just about any framework in existence. Not a single one is perfect in everyone's eyes. If it doesn't make sense to you, don't use it. People write "reviews" like this on popular subjects simply to get eyeballs on their blog, no different than what every news stand publication in existence does, whether their views are right or not. I personally loath people that simple write how bad something is, use it any way and do nothing to contribute to improving the "perceived" deficiencies. The guys last 10 posts on his blog are nothing but bitching about things he hates... that's useful!

Basically he wants PMVC to work with Flex (dependency injection) and nothing else, guess I'd be screwed being a Flash CS3 guy if he was at the helm... glad he's not.
Logged
Jason MacDonald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 243


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2008, 01:55:34 »

I decided to respond however my comment is "awaiting moderation", so i'll post it here in case he decides he doesn't like my comment.

JasonMacdonald Says:  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

So by your estimate, PureMVC should work with Flex and nothing else because you want to use Dependency Injection? And screw all the Flash/AS3 only users out there? Or maybe they should completely rebuild the framework into two separate branches (or 10) for accomplishing the same thing? That’s productive.

Why don’t you stop complaining about how all the frameworks out there have it wrong and BUILD YOUR OWN. Save the rest of the world from your complaining how everyone else gets it wrong and you are right. I honestly can’t stand people like you. Nothing but complaints all the while you do nothing to contribute to the end goal.

If you don’t like it, don’t use it… it’s that simple. If you like it but think it could be improved, contribute! Don’t just bash it for the sake of some blog views.
Logged
puremvc
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2871



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2008, 04:45:09 »

This is why I prefer the term 'open source' as opposed to 'free software'. The former encourages you to look at the code, and improve it, the latter to use it and then lament how you   'get what you pay for'.

-=Cliff>
Logged
Joel Hooks
Courseware Beta
Sr. Member
***
Posts: 146


baby steps

 - 46288188  - passport@provinsal.com  - joeltuff
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2008, 10:10:27 »

favour composition over inheritance

Is it just me, or is this one of the most cherry picked statements ever?

From the book:

Favor object composition over class inheritance

Ideally, you shouldn't have to create new components to achieve reuse. You should be able to get all the functionality you need just by assembling existing components through object composition. But this is rarely the case, because a set of available components is never quite rich enough in practice. Reuse by inheritance makes it easier to make new components that can be composed with old ones. Inheritance and object composition thus work together.
[emphasis mine]

favor is not code for dogmatic implementation of a single option.
Logged

http://joelhooks.com - my ramblings about developing with actionscript and python using pureMVC and django respectively.
polesen
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2008, 12:34:12 »

Greetings. I am the author of the blog post linked to. I guess this is like going into the cave of the lion, but I think you guys are being overly sensitive and a bit unfair here.

@Jason: Give it a break! Your comment has been published without any problems whatsoever. Even though the internet does provide some kind of anonymity, do try to avoid becoming personal. It doesn't help the conversation.

@Cliff: Why is it wrong to voice ones experiences of puremvc if they are bad? Are my experiences wrong? Is it not correct, that puremvc puts an emphazis on keeping puremvc portable to other platforms, hereby sacrificing using platform specific frameworks as core parts of the framework? Is it wrong for people out there, to discuss this, and not totally agree on this as a "good thing"?

I encourage all to read both Jasons comment on the actual blogpost AND the other comments there too. Not all agree. Nor should all agree.
Logged
Jason MacDonald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 243


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2008, 01:10:20 »

@Jason: Give it a break! Your comment has been published without any problems whatsoever. Even though the internet does provide some kind of anonymity, do try to avoid becoming personal. It doesn't help the conversation.

Funny, I use my real name to NOT be anonymous. And you're response is to insult me using a restaurants name. I'm Scottish, not Irish. That's MAC not MC. I thought I left childish insults using name play back in grade school. Guess some people never grow up. I'm done posting on your blog, I only made a response because I see thousands of writings across tons of topics all the same, complain, bitch, moan and do nothing to help. By your own admission you'll publicly bitch about how terrible something is but use it anyway without giving one thing back to the people who worked damn hard to make it. I'm sure Cliff will appreciate that.

You say in your response that you are helping, helping people pick a framework by pointing out all it's faults. Sorry, but a user reading your blog would have to conclude that they shouldn't use ANY of them cause they all suck by your estimate and all have it wrong. It's this point that bugs me.

And before I sign off on this for good, I'm not discouraging discussion on how something can be improved, I'm all for that. I just don't like when people openly bash something and give nothing to indicate they are trying to open a discussion on the topic. How about a topic like "4 things I think need improvement in PMVC and some possible solutions". There's a discussion that both opens the table for productive brainstorming while also bring current "issues" to light for new users.

I'm done beating my head against this brick wall. Do what you want.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 01:24:59 by jasonmac » Logged
puremvc
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2871



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2008, 01:10:55 »

Hi,

I haven't actually read your blog post. I only stated that open source means you're empowered to improve or fix problems or things you don't like.

To the point of 'sacrificing' platform specific features in the name of portability I argue there is a balance to be made and that it is possible to write highly effective software in a portable way, while still leveraging the best features of the vendor platform. It is about finding the appropriate usage of such features in the context of your application.

For instance, though the framework doesn't use it internally to carry out its responsibilities, you don't 'sacrifice' Flex Binding. You are perfectly free to use it. But within the context of a PureMVC app, that means internally within MXML or AS view components to encapsulate their behaviors.

Building ties between View and Model tiers by doing things like making a class of statics (aka 'ModelLocator')  and making binding expressions to them throughout the View tier isn't a good practice anyway. It is, in fact, one of the primary things MVC is about helping to avoid.

So if skirting a known bad practice with a sensible and portable methodology seems like a 'sacrifice' then perhaps another framework will be more to your liking. I hear great things about Mate, and I know the authors Laura and Nahuel personally and hold them in the highest regard. I believe it focuses more on Flex specifically.

-=Cliff>
Logged
polesen
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2008, 01:35:44 »

@Cliff: Thank you for your valuable comment. True on bindings, and I agree completely, that binding directly from view into model is a bad thing.

@Jason: I am sorry to have given the impression that your name should be a restaurant. I am neither Scottish, Irish or English. I guess you see that often.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print