2 ms·

Well it depends on how people are using it I guess? ;) just because there are plenty of MVVM/cqrs projects that have failed doesn't mean that mvc is more succes

Well it depends on how people are using it I guess? ;) just because there are plenty of MVVM/cqrs projects that have failed doesn't mean that mvc is more successful... One could propose that devs are more familiar with the steward of traditional architecture? Pretty much all iOS projects are MVVM - See UITableView. AngularJS is arguably MVVM: in this case the views are databound to the view model which is held by the controller, which is essentially the "Events" component. Additional Edit: All MVC Java Swing apps could arguably be classified as MVVM -> all your JComponents are all... MVC! Which really leads me to think that MVVM is really just nested MVCs... perhaps =)

sklivvz1971 13y ago
Well, the problem is that if you find Controllers badly defined in MVC, good luck in understanding how to use View Models properly. MVVM seems to me on many levels a re-hash of the old Document/View concept, which is... not so good, because of coupling. And in fact, Many MVVM codebases end up being tightly coupled - bear in mind, also many MVC projects, especially of the ActiveRecord sort. My comment obviously relates to my experience, which is admittedly more webby than application-y. I thought iOS was inherently MVC though (or at least, that's what they claim)
- darylteo 13y ago
  I'd argue that MVVM is a subset of MVC. So technically they're accurate. And also, anything that is "badly done" becomes bad. I'm not really sure why it is hard to understand View Models... your controllers shouldn't define your view models. Your VIEWS determine what information is needed to render itself. Any templating engine that requires you to pass in a model (i.e. Handlebars, Jade etc.) is, in effect, MVVM. This makes your views more concise since it doesn't get access to a whole model when it isn't required. Its dependency is specifically only on the View Model itself.

sklivvz1971 13y ago

Well, the problem is that if you find Controllers badly defined in MVC, good luck in understanding how to use View Models properly. MVVM seems to me on many levels a re-hash of the old Document/View concept, which is... not so good, because of coupling. And in fact, Many MVVM codebases end up being tightly coupled - bear in mind, also many MVC projects, especially of the ActiveRecord sort. My comment obviously relates to my experience, which is admittedly more webby than application-y. I thought iOS was inherently MVC though (or at least, that's what they claim)

darylteo 13y ago
I'd argue that MVVM is a subset of MVC. So technically they're accurate. And also, anything that is "badly done" becomes bad. I'm not really sure why it is hard to understand View Models... your controllers shouldn't define your view models. Your VIEWS determine what information is needed to render itself. Any templating engine that requires you to pass in a model (i.e. Handlebars, Jade etc.) is, in effect, MVVM. This makes your views more concise since it doesn't get access to a whole model when it isn't required. Its dependency is specifically only on the View Model itself.