3 ms·

Reasoning about code. Creation of inscrutable bugs. Forcing to create convoluted hierarchy of data structures to work round the problems this convenient 'featur

• MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Ah, the 'spooky action at a distance' aspect. Doesn't much of that apply to data-binding in general though?
  • Marazan 6y ago
    I have found that the difference between one-way and two-way to be quite profound when it comes to the complexity of bugs produced. Race conditions become an almost permanent fixture with two-way and the 'chains of causality' are exponentially more complex in a two-way situation. One-way simplifies things in quite a profound way. I remeber when watching Dan Abromov's excellent Redux tutorial physically laughing and muttering "of course" as every single two-way bug I had ever worked on flashed before my eyes.
    • MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      Switching to one-way-binding is really just replacing upward propagation with events, right? Aren't both approaches vulnerable to data-change cycles, just by different means?
      • TuringTest 6y ago
        Maybe the difference is that you keep control with events, i.e. you can filter, retarget, cancel or otherwise reason in general about the way they propagate? I'm no expert, but the essence of the "reactive functional programming" programming paradigm is that you have composable high level abstractions about the streams of events (e.g. marble diagrams).[1] [1] https://blog.danlew.net/2017/07/27/an-introduction-to-functional-reactive-programming/ https://blog.danlew.net/2017/07/27/an-introduction-to-functi...