Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #37569 > unrolled thread

Weather App - one more round?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 21:15 -0700
    Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-17 21:05 -0700
      Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 21:31 -0700
        Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-18 12:42 -0700
      Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 00:16 -0700
        Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 00:44 -0700
          Re: Weather App - one more round? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-10-18 13:23 +0200
            Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 13:43 -0700
              Re: Weather App - one more round? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-10-18 23:42 +0200
          Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-18 12:36 -0700
        Re: Weather App - one more round? dr.j.r.stockton@gmail.com - 2019-10-18 02:25 -0700
          Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 13:14 -0700
      Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 13:35 -0700
        Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 21:10 -0700
          Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 21:20 -0700
          Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-21 04:21 -0700
            Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-21 15:21 -0700
              Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-21 16:36 -0700
                Re: Weather App - one more round? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-26 04:20 -0700
                  Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-26 07:45 -0700
                    Re: Weather App - one more round? luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 11:06 -0700
                      Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-26 16:23 -0700
                        Re: Weather App - one more round? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-10-27 11:05 +0100
                          Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-27 10:12 -0700
                            Re: Weather App - one more round? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-10-28 00:44 +0100
                    Re: Weather App - one more round? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-28 05:50 -0700
                      Re: Weather App - one more round? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-10-28 06:40 -0700
                        Re: Weather App - one more round? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-28 07:00 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#37625

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 6:20:11 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 01:36:08 UTC+2, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:
> > 
> > > HTH, but I suspect you might be getting a bit disenchanted as every door you
> > > open turns into another hall of doors.
> > 
> > Which brings us back to lesson #1: do not code for the patterns...
> > 
> > HTH,
> > 
> > Julio
> 
> I would only partially agree with this statement unless you can expand on it:
> 
> I'd agree that one shouldn't approach uninformed development by throwing patterns at it. "I don't know what I'm doing, so I'll use the Factory pattern here".
> 
> Though in contrast it has long been known that when you apply a language in a domain it is not optimized for design patterns and idioms emerge [1]. Is that an argument against General Purpose programming languages I wonder, or just evidence of missing orthogonal constructs [2]?
> 
> To bring this back home to the current thread, the fact that MVC was chosen as an architectural pattern wasn't a "bad" choice, just less optimal then its successors (such as HMVC) or competitors (such as PAC). With the height of the learning curve, I like to think of it as a lie that helps tell the truth (and at the pace the OP wants to go).
> 
> 
> [1] <http://wiki.c2.com/?AreDesignPatternsMissingLanguageFeatures>
> [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_science>

I have been feeling a little stalled and disoriented on this project.
I suppose 'disenchanted' is as good a word as any (incidentally, that's
the title of the next show at the theatre where I usually play bass;
but I won't get to play in that one because they're going for an all-
female cast and band, sigh).

I read the HMVC article and had some difficulty in conceiving how to
apply it to the weather app. After a little further investigation I 
found a letter to the editor from the same year suggesting that it's
basically the same thing as PAC, to which the authors replied that
yes, PAC seems to be more general and they weren't aware of it while
developing HMVC.

So I read a few more related things (and lots of useless YouTube 
shootouts). And I think the Taligent MVP model is easier to understand
(and hopefully, to apply).

https://web.archive.org/web/20000816043846/http://www.ibm.com/java/education/mvp.pdf

I tried investigating what FP alternatives to OO patterns might exist
and the only things I found were about Reactive libraries for 
closurescript. So I'm leaning towards trying to apply MVP, but 
haven't had the wherewithal to actually pull out my notebook and 
sketch it out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37627

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 1:06:30 PM UTC-5, luserdroog wrote:

> I have been feeling a little stalled and disoriented on this project.
> I suppose 'disenchanted' is as good a word as any (incidentally, that's
> the title of the next show at the theatre where I usually play bass;
> but I won't get to play in that one because they're going for an all-
> female cast and band, sigh).

Never hurts to take time off. Ingestion vs digestion.

> I read the HMVC article and had some difficulty in conceiving how to
> apply it to the weather app. After a little further investigation I 
> found a letter to the editor from the same year suggesting that it's
> basically the same thing as PAC, to which the authors replied that
> yes, PAC seems to be more general and they weren't aware of it while
> developing HMVC.

Indeed. A variant of PAC I use for all of my personal projects, and some business applications:

<http://aspiringcraftsman.com/2007/08/25/interactive-application-architecture/>

> So I read a few more related things (and lots of useless YouTube 
> shootouts). And I think the Taligent MVP model is easier to understand
> (and hopefully, to apply).

Being a hobby project, give it a try and see. Even if it doesn't pan out you can use it to inform your earlier efforts.

> https://web.archive.org/web/20000816043846/http://www.ibm.com/java/education/mvp.pdf

I'm a fan of any resource that actually gives actionable information. This is a good one.

> I tried investigating what FP alternatives to OO patterns might exist
> and the only things I found were about Reactive libraries for 
> closurescript. So I'm leaning towards trying to apply MVP, but 
> haven't had the wherewithal to actually pull out my notebook and 
> sketch it out.


Yeah, if you go functional you'll find the learning curve is steeper. Many efforts I see are simply emulations of the Object Oriented approach but made unnecessarily complex and masked in terminology. For example:

http://www.haskellforall.com/2014/04/model-view-controller-haskell-style.html

If you DO want to jump ship and try a functional or pseudo-functional approach instead there are plentiful suggestions we could give. I'd suggest not starting from scratch again on the weather app to learn it though. Pick something smaller and more trivial.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37629

"Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> wrote on 27 Oct 2019 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Never hurts to take time off. Ingestion vs digestion.

Indigestion is always a risk.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37631

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 5:06:18 AM UTC-5, Evertjan. wrote:
> "Michael Haufe (TNO)" wrote on:
> 
> > Never hurts to take time off. Ingestion vs digestion.
> 
> Indigestion is always a risk.


Hence the idiom: "One's eyes are bigger than one's stomach"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37632

"Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> wrote on 27 Oct 2019 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 5:06:18 AM UTC-5, Evertjan. wrote:
>> "Michael Haufe (TNO)" wrote on:
>> 
>> > Never hurts to take time off. Ingestion vs digestion.
>> 
>> Indigestion is always a risk.
> 
> 
> Hence the idiom: "One's eyes are bigger than one's stomach"

So the ayes have it? 

"Division! Clear the lobbies!"

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37633

On Saturday, 26 October 2019 16:45:40 UTC+2, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 6:20:11 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 01:36:08 UTC+2, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:
> > 
> > > HTH, but I suspect you might be getting a bit disenchanted as every door you
> > > open turns into another hall of doors.
> > 
> > Which brings us back to lesson #1: do not code for the patterns...
> 
> I would only partially agree with this statement unless you can expand on it:
> 
> I'd agree that one shouldn't approach uninformed development by throwing patterns at it. "I don't know what I'm doing, so I'll use the Factory pattern here".
> 
> Though in contrast it has long been known that when you apply a language in a domain it is not optimized for design patterns and idioms emerge [1]. Is that an argument against General Purpose programming languages I wonder, or just evidence of missing orthogonal constructs [2]?
> 
> To bring this back home to the current thread, the fact that MVC was chosen as an architectural pattern wasn't a "bad" choice, just less optimal then its successors (such as HMVC) or competitors (such as PAC). With the height of the learning curve, I like to think of it as a lie that helps tell the truth (and at the pace the OP wants to go).
> 
> [1] <http://wiki.c2.com/?AreDesignPatternsMissingLanguageFeatures>
> [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_science>

You miss the point completely and on the whole line: indeed, from the fact that
it is in the sense of a learning (and didactic) progression that one should NOT
start by learning patterns of any kind, on the contrary, one should start from
an approach to the programming discipline from first principles, a lesson you
apparently have missed; to the fact that the very articles you post and the
authorities you trust are scam and bullshit of the worst kind and the misery
of an entire industry.

Sure, I could expand even more, but it won't help: you should cut the crap and
do your own home work for a change.

HTH and EOD,

Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37634

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 7:50:58 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> You miss the point completely and on the whole line: indeed, from the fact that
> it is in the sense of a learning (and didactic) progression that one should NOT
> start by learning patterns of any kind, on the contrary, one should start from
> an approach to the programming discipline from first principles, a lesson you
> apparently have missed;

So before one can learn to use a light switch, they must first understand Quantum Mechanics? Nevermind the fact that you are unable and/or unwilling to ever express these first principles.

> to the fact that the very articles you post and the
> authorities you trust are scam and bullshit of the worst kind and the misery
> of an entire industry.

If you're going to throw stones at people such as Peter Norvig (One of the authorities I referenced indirectly), you have to do better than that. We've been over this before. In fact I'll quote myself:

"There is a big difference between something being true, what you think is true, and what you can demonstrate to be true."

The people you criticize can at least demonstrate their claims and knowledge (right or wrong), whereas you never do.

> Sure, I could expand even more, but it won't help: you should cut the crap and
> do your own home work for a change.

I don't believe you. You have never expanded on anything you claim in this list over the years. For example:

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.javascript/9FxKCWG7NLQ/iXVPdwuaCgAJ>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37635

On Monday, 28 October 2019 14:40:52 UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:

> So before one can learn to use a light switch, they must first understand
> Quantum Mechanics?

Tell that to yourself, you inconsequential idiot.

> I don't believe you. You have never expanded on anything you claim in this list over the years. For example:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.javascript/9FxKCWG7NLQ/iXVPdwuaCgAJ> 

And for the umpteenth time: if you cannot even read...

*Plonk*

Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web