> > It's certainly reasonable to say that there is a point where pursuing > fractal TEA is overkill and not buying one much but extra plumbing work. >
I would say that pursuing it as the end itself, rather than using it when appropriate as the means to an end (the end being a code base that scales nicely), is overkill from the start. :) But it is also exactly the case of things like the sign up form where being > able to say "Here is a sign up form. It has a model, messages, update, and > view. You embed it in the rest of your app like this." > Sure. You can already do that; that is the signup form's API. That doesn't imply the checkbox ought to have the same API! > The goal in a composable architecture is to have "like this" fit enough of > a pattern that a programmer coming into an embedding situation knows what > to expect. > That is the purpose of an API; programmers seeking to reuse code know what to expect by looking at a clear API. "Everything ought to have the same API" is a much harder claim to defend. It sounds wrong at face value, and I haven't seen any evidence (in this thread or elsewhere) to convince me that it's a wise goal to pursue. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
