> > "just write one monster model" approach > Mark, this is about the third time you've insinuated that my explanation of how to split things up <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Felm%2Fcomments%2F5jd2xn%2Fhow_to_structure_elm_with_multiple_models%2Fdbkpgbd%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGok1RfeOErHn0iHaD5FWlnkRGO5Q> somehow amounts to not splitting things up at all. Someone called you out on it <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/Lo6bG96zotI/8Y0Mu1nxDgAJ>, and then you switched insults from "ball of mud" to "monster model." If you genuinely want to have a discussion, it's important not to misrepresent the other side.
It's also weird to me that you keep responding to my point of "this approach has worked really well for lots of Elm programmers, in practice, in real life, already" with "I bet that won't work well in practice, in real life, based on my experiences in other languages." We're past the point of theoretical predictions here. The experiment has already been done, and then replicated successfully many times. Your comment that "this approach didn't work for us in C++" seems particularly weird. I'd say there are "a few" differences between Elm and C++, refactoring experience included. ;) -- 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.
