> > The structure camp says (in many more words) "I've seen your alternative > and it isn't a real alternative. It's a pathway that decades of software > industry experience indicates leads to creating big balls of mud." > This idea would hold more water if people hadn't tried what you're telling them Decades Of Experience Dictates Can't Possibly Work and found that it actually worked great when they tried it.
The old "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" argument does not have a great track record. > To the extent that we live in a world where we all say "you're free to > develop software however you see fit", we can often take the attitude. > "That's interesting. It wouldn't work for me but I see why you are making > those choices." > It seems that from your perspective, this is an intellectual exercise with low stakes. I see this as a discussion that has great potential to cause pain, because I've seen a lot of pain result from past discussions on this topic. A lot of people follow what you're advocating and then end up reporting that they had a really bad experience with it. I ask where they got the idea that this would be a good approach to follow, and they point to a blog post someone wrote, or a discussion thread where nobody stood up for the simpler alternative. Then I point them to advice like this <https://www.reddit.com/r/elm/comments/5jd2xn/how_to_structure_elm_with_multiple_models/dbuu0m4/>, and I get a lot of people coming back to thank me afterwards, saying they got out of the "component mindset" and now they're happy with how their code scales. *I have not seen the reverse happening.* I don't see people saying "I decided to refactor everything to be based around model/view/update triplets just because, and I was much happier with my code afterwards." Obviously it's not impossible to follow your advice and have a fine time anyway, but I can confirm at least one case - myself - where someone consciously shifted towards the "component mindset" (before it had that name) and hated working with the result so much, he halted work on the project until he could refactor it back to the old way. You keep acting like this is unexplored territory even though *it has been explored by many people.* I'm not going to pretend discussing things in a public form has no consequences for beginners who come across it later. Call me a bold-text-using verbal ruffian if you like. If I can pull people away from a cliff, I intend to. :) -- 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.
