Well, we still use Models and Views, but not with React or Rails, no no no.
With classic ASP.
Also I'm not sure as to where the line is being drawn between frontend and backend...
Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
31–40 of 106 posts
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you have is described as an "action dispatcher" these days. For what it's worth, I think, we can define the whole Flux architecture in somewhat-skewed MVC terms. Not trying to downplay the usefulness of Flux here but if I'm not all wrong, it would've helped many people if we kept at least some of the terms from MVC or MVVM.
Ah cool, thanks. Does the action dispatcher also interact with the backend? My understanding was that it just created little action objects and little more. Our controller is decidedly more heavy-weight. I'm not saying it's the best possible way to go but it's been working well for us so far :-)
In redux terms, your controller would be the bundle of "action creators". If you use vanilla redux, those would conduct all your "logic", including communicating with the backend. This has some pros and cons, so there are extensions("middlewares") to redux which iterate on the concept - redux-thunk, redux-saga, etc.
Since redux largely defines the design of the "Model" part and React largely defines the design of the "View" part, most of the variation when using React and redux is how to design your "Controller".
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#33I think there is a problem defining MVC. If you argue that current innovations in the frontend do not violate MVC, then MVC is a very useless term. If you think of an very conservative, OOP definition of MVC i don't think React fits the model. Of course that means that many other frameworks are not truly MVC, but MVC-inspired, but i don't have a problem with that.
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#34Am I the only one thinking this kind of discussion is not hitting the nail on the head? I think the main issue with web UIs is the lack of good UI design tools, and nice and robust components. When I am developing a UI I am spending a lot of time writing code code while I just want to drag and drop components.
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#35Its the same pattern. The whole point of MVC isn't the damn precise implementation its about separating out the concerns of the view, the services/data and a thing or some things that control and/or glue it all together. The point is to not munge all these things into one monolithic horrible grim mess. As long as you are separating the concerns of showing something to a user, allowing them to control it and backing i…
I agree completely. If you model is echoing long bits of HTML, or your views contain lots of SQL, that's not really MVC. Almost everything is just details. We get excited about labelling them as 'ADR' or 'MVVM' but they are all just variations on a theme.
Perhaps the problem is that rules like 'no SQL in your views' is now so ingrained, a lot of juniors have never seen a monolothic mess of SQL mixed with HTML. So MVC is almost ubiquitous, and we then try breaking it down into different sub-categories.
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#36It's in times like this that I'm glad I don't blindly follow the hype.
According to the consensus, I should have gone with Backbone.js in 2011 (then Knockout, Ember, Meteor, Angular…)
I'm still not completely convinced by React, and I may very well be wrong, but the same skepticism that sometimes makes me feel out of touch, also provides some sanity in this madness.
For some reason that I can't quite point out yet, Vue.js feels like the nicest one yet, though I've only played with it briefly.
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#37MVC was originally designed as a pattern for desktop UIs. It has a single controller and a single model, not the MVC style that Rails popularized with one controller class and one model class for every kind of data. In classic MVC, Views query the Model for relevant data. The Controller handles user actions and uses that to update the Model, then asks the View to redraw (preferably in some smart efficient manner). Th…
> I'm even happy they gave it a new name (Flux) because MVC frankly has gotten way too many definitions.
Sad because there are too many definitions? Nothing a new name can't fix!
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#38I have the feeling I am reading Vogue describing what should be the new trend this winter.
Note that FreeCodeCamp'a entire existence model is teaching people the trendiest thing so they can get jobs.
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#39Am I the only one thinking this kind of discussion is not hitting the nail on the head? I think the main issue with web UIs is the lack of good UI design tools, and nice and robust components. When I am developing a UI I am spending a lot of time writing code code while I just want to drag and drop components.
When has drag and drop ever worked for any programing environment?
Re: Is Model-View-Controller dead on the front end?
#40MVC was originally designed as a pattern for desktop UIs. It has a single controller and a single model, not the MVC style that Rails popularized with one controller class and one model class for every kind of data. In classic MVC, Views query the Model for relevant data. The Controller handles user actions and uses that to update the Model, then asks the View to redraw (preferably in some smart efficient manner). Th…
FYI: I've decided to further elaborate on this argument a bit in a blog post: https://blog.talkjs.com/how-react-brought-model-view-control...