--- drieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ovid, > > I love the smell of 'primate-ism' .... > > It could be merely the way that you are presenting the > problem - and a desire to defend an anachronistic model > of MVC, based upon the underlying 'primate-ism', and > the scary thought of 'recursion' in conceptual models > that might mean sticking the primate in a chair, and > leaving the heavy lifting to sentient life forms. [snip]
Hi drieux, Clearly I need to read my email more frequently. It looks like there was a bit of a miscommunication and in rereading what I originally wrote, I think the problem lies in my assuming too much background information and, as a result, not explaining as much as I should have. I've been bitten by that before and I can only apologize and offer the following clarification: The only point that I was intending to make was that the MVC model that people discuss had it's roots in the MVC model as described by the GoF (Gang of Four -- the "Design Patterns" authors) and if people are learning about MVC from the discussion on this list, it is probably a good thing that they know a bit of the history of said pattern rather than assume that it was coughed up from the void fully formed in the way that it's being discussed on this list. I am not saying that the GoF presented the only correct view of how MVC should work (in fact, I object to a common interpretation that DP can only be used for OO languages). However, the original point of Design Patterns (the architectural ones preceeding the programmatic ones) was to give people a common vocabulary so they can discuss a situation and know what each other is talking about. I'm sure plenty of us have had conversations where we say "foo", the other person says "foo", but the conversation goes nowhere. That's quite often due to each person having a different conceptual idea of what "foo" is. If the people on this list are handed a version of MVC for the Web and have no idea of the history and origins of said pattern, then someone who only knows it from the GoF description is going to have a very confused conversation with someone who doesn't know the GoF description. No either description is necessarily good or bad, but they have significantly different implementations and that's an important difference. Considering that another name for the MVC pattern is the "Observer" and that the term "Observer" doesn't make much sense when using the Web, I think that's important to know. In other words, if everyone starts using similar terms, they should have similar meanings or at least know where their definitions differ. That's all I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Ovid ===== Silence is Evil http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/philosophy/indexdecency.htm Ovid http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=17000 Web Programming with Perl http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
