3 ms·
MVVM: yes, in most cases. There are some cases where it's a godsend, but most of the uses I have seen are ... not entirely sane. But MVC? That's pretty minim
by mpweiher 4y ago
MVVM: yes, in most cases. There are some cases where it's a godsend, but most of the uses I have seen are ... not entirely sane.
But MVC? That's pretty minimal in terms of what you're going to do anyway if you have functionality (model) and will be interacting with it (view). Controllers are often misunderstood, and in the case of Apple massively misapplied (Massive View Controllers).
- marcosdumay 4y agoIt doesn't help that there are dozens of different definitions of MVC running around. The very clearly uses one that is different from yours. The thing is that, whatever definition you use, you should have almost all of your code in one of those layers, a small minority on another, and shouldn't even remember exactly how to change the other (unless you start many projects). If that's not the case, your code architecture is working against you.
- jim180 4y agoAgreed on that controllers are often misunderstood. I saw them to become both: a view and a model at the same time. :(
- mpweiher 4y agoWhat's important to realise is that the elements in MVC are roles not entities. So for example Views in Cocoa actually fulfil both the View and (largely) the Controller role. Which is why ViewControllers confused me greatly when they came out. Like they confuse most of the Apple-ecosystem code out there these days. While I do understand how they got there, that doesn't make it better...
- jim180 4y agoagree again. offtopic: love your blog!