Fix whitespace
This commit is contained in:
parent
f40b32cf6d
commit
41448fd6b8
|
@ -8,14 +8,14 @@ conceptual overhead?
|
|||
Reagent is wonderful. If your application is small and simple, then standalone Reagent
|
||||
is absolutely a fine choice.
|
||||
|
||||
But it does only supply the V part of the traditional MVC triad. As a result, as
|
||||
But it does only supply the V part of the traditional MVC triad. As a result, as
|
||||
your application starts to get bigger and more complicated, you will need to
|
||||
find solutions to questions in the M and C realms - like "where does the control logic go?". And,
|
||||
"how do I manage state". And, coordination issues like "How do I put up a spinner
|
||||
when waiting for the database, and take it down correctly?". How do I ensure
|
||||
efficient view updates? How do I write my control logic in a way that's testable.
|
||||
|
||||
These questions accumulate. Reagent, by itself,
|
||||
These questions accumulate. Reagent, by itself,
|
||||
provides little guidance and, so, you'll need to
|
||||
come up with your own solutions. The choices you make will accumulate too and,
|
||||
over time, will become baked into into your code base,
|
||||
|
@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ becoming increasingly difficult to revisit.
|
|||
|
||||
Now, any decision which is hard to revisit later is an architecture decision - that's
|
||||
pretty much the definition of architecture. So, as you proceed, baking your
|
||||
decisions into your code base, you will be incrementally growing an architecture.
|
||||
decisions into your code base, you will be incrementally growing an architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
So, then, the question becomes: is your architecture better than re-frame's? Because
|
||||
that's what re-frame gives you ... an architecture ... answers to the
|
||||
|
@ -32,17 +32,17 @@ various questions you'll face when developing your app.
|
|||
Now, in response, some will enthusiastically say "yes, I want to grow my own architecture".
|
||||
Fair enough - its a fun ride.
|
||||
|
||||
I think the only danger arises if this process is not conscious and purposeful - if
|
||||
someone gets going quickly with Reagent and has a bunch of enjoyable early wins, but
|
||||
ends up in the weeds because they didn't understand the road they were driving as
|
||||
I think the only danger arises if this process is not conscious and purposeful - if
|
||||
someone gets going quickly with Reagent and has a bunch of enjoyable early wins, but
|
||||
ends up in the weeds because they didn't understand the road they were driving as
|
||||
their application was getting bigger.
|
||||
|
||||
I've had many people (20?) privately say to me that's what happened to them. The real
|
||||
number would obviously be much higher. And that's pretty much the reason for
|
||||
I've had many people (20?) privately say to me that's what happened to them. The real
|
||||
number would obviously be much higher. And that's pretty much the reason for
|
||||
this FAQ - this happens too often.
|
||||
|
||||
So, my advice is ... if your application is a little more complicated,
|
||||
be sure to make a conscious choice around architecture, because one way or
|
||||
So, my advice is ... if your application is a little more complicated,
|
||||
be sure to make a conscious choice around architecture, because one way or
|
||||
another you'll be using one. If your application is beyond a few thousands lines
|
||||
of code, and you are using only Reagent, you **will** end up creating your own "alternative re-frame".
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue