> > 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
