1. 10
  1.  

  2. 6

    That is an awful lot of concepts to juggle. Maybe the simpler thing is to craft your own architecture, rather than putting bandaids on a one-size-fits-all architecture.

    It’s about the simplest and clearest code, right?

    1. 3

      I agree with your overall sentiment, that patterns are emergent. However I don’t think an article introducing lot of concepts at once is a disservice if it helps a reader think about the possibilities beyond “model, view, controller, helper” for the first time. I was recently reminded that it is still a revelation to many people, that one can create a category of abstraction beyond those blessed by the framework.

      If you read the article as “Thou shalt use all these extra tools!” then yeah, it’s a lot of unnecessary extensions, and they would only be a distraction for most projects.

      If you read it as possible options one might use when the need for more special-purpose abstractions is felt, it could be a helpful first introduction. The opening paragraph seems to frame it this way, although the phrasing reads a bit choppy. To drive this point home (“Use some of these, only where they fit, only when you’re sure you need them”) it could bear to to be repeated in the prose before each section.