Comments on: How far behind are Microsoft developer frameworks in terms of design?

By: fake rolex watches

fake rolex watches — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:23:00 +0000

As the business grows, rolex replicas has also jumped into an international brand. It is worth mentioning that,replica rolex watches is the ancestor of today's brand-oriented, in order to protect the quality and brand name will be printed on their products, the history of fashion in the world, is the first one first.rolex replica watches, fake rolex, fake rolex watches .fake omega watches replica omega watches tag heuer replica watches tag heuer watches.http://www.erowatch.com

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:25:38 +0000

Scott, I have studied patterns, implemented several and have inherited quite a few applications with patterns implemented. I think the thing you have to recognize is:

1. Will a pattern really “move the needle” for me now?
2. Will the pattern make it easier to support later on?
3. Do I need to be a purist and implement a pattern the way it should be, or the way that works best in this environment?

Some patterns, such as Singleton or Presenter, are classic. Others, like Factory Factory, are just plain stupid and serve no real purpose other than for someone to say that they developed a pattern.

Every bit of your software should follow a pattern, other wise you end up with disconnected chaos. However, that pattern should be yours ultimately, even if it did evolve from some other pattern.

Study them, but leave the purist implementations for academia.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:06:50 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by spoon16: How far behind are Microsoft developer frameworks in terms of design? http://bit.ly/3Td1K...

By: Rafiki

Rafiki — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:58:34 +0000

Oh, yeah, Scott? User interaction handling in MVC should be done in Controller, however Apple evangelizes event wiring using Interface Builder (view designer). Of course you could do that by hand, but designers of framework insist on using IB. On the other hand delegation (and data source) paradigm used by Apple in it’s more complicated view classes forces you to introduce view-specific methods in your controller class. Of course you could do it in a separate class, but Apple do it in controller in it’s documentation and moreover in it’s implementations (TableView and TableViewController in Cocoa Touch).

I’m pretty sure it’s exciting to play with a new (for you) and shiny (in combination with beautiful hardware) thing, but please, please, please, do it correctly and after a bit of thinking (or better research). What did you meant mentioning Observer. Is void* pointer and method name string is superior? Do it in .NET – it’s just silly, but do it if you prefer. Adapter? What about it? How it should be embedded into Framework? MVC? Is good separation of concerns between code-behind file and declarative view is *really* different of Cocoa’s Controller + declarative view scheme?

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:35:42 +0000

Rafiki – Yes, I’ve written Cocoa before. The logic wiring ( whatever that is) is not done in the view and controller in a properly designed app. In fact, unless you subclass the views and purposefully put logic in your views, it’s impossible to put application logic into your views.

Mark – MVVM is just a re-worded Presentation model. It’s just for branding. I haven’t looked at the Reactive framework, but how long before that makes it into the mass markets hands? Sure some parts of MS Research are pushing the envelope, but most of that stuff will never make it into the BCL.

By: Mark Rendle

Mark Rendle — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:26:18 +0000

Behind? I’d say in many cases they’re moving the state of the art forward. .NET 1.0′s events and delegates were a step forward in implementing Observable/Observer. Now, in .NET 4.0, Erik Meijer’s Reactive Framework basically shows that Observer/Observable and Iterator/Iterable are the same thing. WPF has introduced MVVM, which is a far better pattern for well-designed, modern desktop UI than MVC.

By: Dew Drop – October 24, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

Dew Drop – October 24, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:38:43 +0000

[...] How far behind are Microsoft developer frameworks in terms of design? (Scott Koon) [...]

By: Rafiki

Rafiki — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:59:08 +0000

Oh, gosh! Have you seen WebObjects, NextStep’s web framework? Have you any idea of difference between MVC in reach client and web app? Have you ever wrote a single line of Cocoa?

Adapter and observer is new to Microsoft frameworks? What? It’s even embedded into some of it’s languages. Design patterns are common idioms have not implemented by programming language. Objective C programming language is old and dirty. It had zero progress for an ages. Recently it’ve made some progress but still is as archaic as sabre-toothed tiger.

Those developers went with MVC only because subclass method look-up is way too expansive in ObjC. If you look at any Cocoa app intensively enough, you’ll surly see that Controller class is code class is code-behind – no more. Logic wiring in Cocoa partially done in UI designer and UI logic – in Controller. It’s inevitable. Thit’s the way Cocoa works.

Gamma and others only like Cocoa because of it’s raw dynamic nature – it’s great illustration for patterns, done in other languages using simple one-liner. Besides that ObjC in terminology is derivative from Smalltalk.