4 ms·
No way CSLA.NET is "awesome" by any measure. See [1], for example 1: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10922373/60188 http://stackoverflow.com/a/10922373/60188
by anton_gogolev 10y ago
No way CSLA.NET is "awesome" by any measure. See [1], for example
1: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10922373/60188 http://stackoverflow.com/a/10922373/60188
- jsingleton 10y agoNot sure why you (and I) got down-voted for valid criticisms. Maybe Rocky lurks on here? :) CSLA.NET has a lot of really bad parts. I've had to maintain apps written in it and have felt the pain. Who really changes from a 2-tier to 3-tier architecture anyway? I feel it was only ever popular because of the business objects book.
- throwawayReply 10y agoAbsolutely, we had a CSLA project in one of my previous places of work and it became that project no-one dared touch because it just about worked in it's current state but no one could actually understand. So we'd just write "around" the abstractions to avoid having to interact with the CSLA "magic". Eventually I think it was written out of the solution.
- ska 10y agoUnless things have changed radically since I looked at it, the same can be said about Math.NET
- taco_emoji 10y agoYeah, CSLA is: 1) Designed for big projects 2) Easy to screw up without lots of experience The fact that big projects require many developers means those developers rarely have the experience necessary (with CSLA - even an experienced .NET developer is at a disadvantage) to architect it properly, and so it becomes a maintenance nightmare. It's instructive (for business app developers, anyway) to read Rocky Lhotka's book in order to understand what problems he was trying to solve with CSLA, but it's not really worth using the framework...