Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:52:36 -0700 Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A Rose by any other name... From: flappleja...@gmail.com To: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com
How about we call it MVTronix9000? :-P
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the current verbose name.
-Corrado
From: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Kempf Sent: lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 To: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com Subject: [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the > name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or > Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become > the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the > current verbose name.
> -Corrado
> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: > wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf > *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 > *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli <corradocava...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the > name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or > Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become > the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the > current verbose name.
> -Corrado
> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: > wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf > *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 > *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Mike Brown <mbrow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > I posted my comments on your blog. Suffice it to say I agree with you (we > Hoosiers have to stick together).
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < > corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the >> name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become >> the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the >> current verbose name.
>> -Corrado
>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want > to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may > actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why > I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with > Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to > be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The > realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli <corradocava...@gmail.com > > wrote:
>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the >> name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become >> the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the >> current verbose name.
>> -Corrado
>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want >> to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may >> actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why >> I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with >> Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to >> be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The >> realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like.
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the >>> name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become >>> the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the >>> current verbose name.
>>> -Corrado
>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, he's really quite intelligent).
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote: > LOL. I prefer George.
> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze him." > "And pat him, and pet him, and..." > "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)!
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want >>> to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may >>> actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why >>> I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with >>> Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to >>> be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The >>> realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like.
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the >>>> name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become >>>> the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the >>>> current verbose name.
>>>> -Corrado
>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In > Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up > being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, > he's really quite intelligent).
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> LOL. I prefer George.
>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze >> him." >> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)!
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that >>>> want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where >>>> they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". >>>> That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to >>>> stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more >>>> likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting >>>> M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I >>>> like.
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing >>>>> the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>>>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now >>>>> become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay >>>>> with the current verbose name.
>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In >> Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up >> being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, >> he's really quite intelligent).
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze >>> him." >>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)!
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com >>> > wrote:
>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that >>>>> want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where >>>>> they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". >>>>> That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to >>>>> stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more >>>>> likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting >>>>> M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I >>>>> like.
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing >>>>>> the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>>>>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now >>>>>> become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay >>>>>> with the current verbose name.
>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
> Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is a > symbol.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In >>> Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up >>> being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, >>> he's really quite intelligent).
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze >>>> him." >>>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)!
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that >>>>>> want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where >>>>>> they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". >>>>>> That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to >>>>>> stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more >>>>>> likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting >>>>>> M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I >>>>>> like.
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing >>>>>>> the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>>>>>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now >>>>>>> become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay >>>>>>> with the current verbose name.
>>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote: > ^^vv^^ works great as a symbol ;).
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is a >> symbol.
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In >>>> Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up >>>> being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, >>>> he's really quite intelligent).
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze >>>>> him." >>>>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>>>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny >>>>> Rabbit)!
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that >>>>>>> want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where >>>>>>> they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". >>>>>>> That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to >>>>>>> stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more >>>>>>> likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting >>>>>>> M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I >>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing >>>>>>>> the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>>>>>>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now >>>>>>>> become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay >>>>>>>> with the current verbose name.
>>>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
The way I see it MVVM is the name of the pattern (ok some may argue that Presentation Model is the real pattern name which I don't agree 100% with, but that is a different matter) who ever finds it hard to pronounce it, will just call it ViewModel. I don't know how or why we should be saying that the community should always say ViewModel.
MVVM yet when I am speaking I call it VM or ViewModel... no need to make a revolution :)
I think MVVM is really getting the community going crazy lately.... let's have some fun with reflection, DLR and what something crazy like that... hehe... get our heads a bit distracted :D
P.S I get the point of the post Bill. I am a big beleiver of Patterns and know that the name is super important because at the end of the day patterns are there so that you do not say... I want I class which can be instinsiated only once, you just say I want a Singleton. Yet I don't see the difference between MVVM and ViewModel if the meaning will be the same.... I would stick with what is already out there....
just my 2 cents as my Karl Shiflett used to say... karl where are you???? MS you stole him from us :(
> I like it. I'm going to see if I can fit it into a blog post somewhere.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ^^vv^^ works great as a symbol ;).
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is a >>> symbol.
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father >>>>> In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended >>>>> up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, >>>>> he's really quite intelligent).
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>>>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze >>>>>> him." >>>>>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>>>>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>>>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny >>>>>> Rabbit)!
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that >>>>>>>> want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where >>>>>>>> they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". >>>>>>>> That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to >>>>>>>> stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more >>>>>>>> likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting >>>>>>>> M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I >>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that >>>>>>>>> changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of >>>>>>>>> view (or Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM >>>>>>>>> has now become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll >>>>>>>>> stay with the current verbose name.
>>>>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
The importance here is that the name, by itself, doesn't convey any meaning. Consistent use of the name is what "binds" it to the meaning (what the pattern is). When a pattern has two names, you're not using the names consistently, and thus are diluting the "meaning" behind the name. It's worse when one of the names is used by a smaller community, while the other name is used by a larger community. Outside of WPF, this pattern is called Presentation Model. When someone from that larger community talks with, or worse, tries to join the WPF community, the name M-V-VM means nothing to them. When you try and explain the pattern to them, they find it difficult to understand, because you're describing something that sounds like a pattern they already know (because you ARE). Names are important. That's the whole point behind patterns, BTW. All of the patterns in GoF already existed when the book was published. What was revolutionary was that GoF finally applied NAMES to these patterns, which enabled us to discuss the patterns at a much higher level than we'd been able to previously.
Even if there weren't the issue of two names for the same pattern, I'd still argue that there's an issue with MVVM. That's such a difficult name that I can't tell you the number of times I've seen things like "ModelView-View-Model" used in discussions, which much like the two name dilemma, leads to confusion and break down in communication. In a vacuum, View Model seems ideal. Given history, Presentation Model is probably the better name. Given the momentum behind WPF and MVVM, ^^vv^^ may be here to stay.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Marlon Grech <marlongr...@gmail.com> wrote: > The way I see it MVVM is the name of the pattern (ok some may argue that > Presentation Model is the real pattern name which I don't agree 100% with, > but that is a different matter) who ever finds it hard to pronounce it, will > just call it ViewModel. I don't know how or why we should be saying that the > community should always say ViewModel.
> MVVM yet when I am speaking I call it VM or ViewModel... no need to make a > revolution :)
> I think MVVM is really getting the community going crazy lately.... let's > have some fun with reflection, DLR and what something crazy like that... > hehe... get our heads a bit distracted :D
> P.S I get the point of the post Bill. I am a big beleiver of Patterns and > know that the name is super important because at the end of the day patterns > are there so that you do not say... I want I class which can be instinsiated > only once, you just say I want a Singleton. Yet I don't see the difference > between MVVM and ViewModel if the meaning will be the same.... I would stick > with what is already out there....
> just my 2 cents as my Karl Shiflett used to say... karl where are you???? > MS you stole him from us :(
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I like it. I'm going to see if I can fit it into a blog post somewhere.
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ^^vv^^ works great as a symbol ;).
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is a >>>> symbol.
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com >>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father >>>>>> In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended >>>>>> up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, >>>>>> he's really quite intelligent).
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>>>>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze >>>>>>> him." >>>>>>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>>>>>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>>>>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny >>>>>>> Rabbit)!
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) >>>>>>>>> that want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position >>>>>>>>> where they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular >>>>>>>>> demand". That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me >>>>>>>>> wants to stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View >>>>>>>>> Model is more likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue >>>>>>>>> twisting M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no >>>>>>>>> matter what I like.
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>>>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that >>>>>>>>>> changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of >>>>>>>>>> view (or Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM >>>>>>>>>> has now become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll >>>>>>>>>> stay with the current verbose name.
>>>>>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
Funny I was going to say us Corn Huskers (cuz that's all that's in Indiana right?) but realize it implied Nebraska. Don't worry I still have no clue what hoosier means (outside of being a nice segway into a pun as in "Hoosier Daddy") I'm from Chicago originally with a short stint in WI.
BTW, I haven't confirmed this but I believe the abominable snowman character was originally inspired by Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" the voice even sounds like a direct imitation of Lon Chaney's rendition http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031742/.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even if one of us is a Husker transplant that barely knows what a Hoosier > is? ;)
> Yeah, we seem to be in agreement, though I'm not sure if you've got the > same heartburn feeling I do over such a trivial issue. :)
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Mike Brown <mbrow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill, >> I posted my comments on your blog. Suffice it to say I agree with you >> (we Hoosiers have to stick together).
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the >>> name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or >>> Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become >>> the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the >>> current verbose name.
>>> -Corrado
>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote: > The importance here is that the name, by itself, doesn't convey any > meaning. Consistent use of the name is what "binds" it to the meaning (what > the pattern is). When a pattern has two names, you're not using the names > consistently, and thus are diluting the "meaning" behind the name. It's > worse when one of the names is used by a smaller community, while the other > name is used by a larger community. Outside of WPF, this pattern is called > Presentation Model. When someone from that larger community talks with, or > worse, tries to join the WPF community, the name M-V-VM means nothing to > them. When you try and explain the pattern to them, they find it difficult > to understand, because you're describing something that sounds like a > pattern they already know (because you ARE). Names are important. That's > the whole point behind patterns, BTW. All of the patterns in GoF already > existed when the book was published. What was revolutionary was that GoF > finally applied NAMES to these patterns, which enabled us to discuss the > patterns at a much higher level than we'd been able to previously.
> Even if there weren't the issue of two names for the same pattern, I'd > still argue that there's an issue with MVVM. That's such a difficult name > that I can't tell you the number of times I've seen things like > "ModelView-View-Model" used in discussions, which much like the two name > dilemma, leads to confusion and break down in communication. In a vacuum, > View Model seems ideal. Given history, Presentation Model is probably the > better name. Given the momentum behind WPF and MVVM, ^^vv^^ may be here to > stay.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Marlon Grech <marlongr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> The way I see it MVVM is the name of the pattern (ok some may argue that >> Presentation Model is the real pattern name which I don't agree 100% with, >> but that is a different matter) who ever finds it hard to pronounce it, will >> just call it ViewModel. I don't know how or why we should be saying that the >> community should always say ViewModel.
>> MVVM yet when I am speaking I call it VM or ViewModel... no need to make a >> revolution :)
>> I think MVVM is really getting the community going crazy lately.... let's >> have some fun with reflection, DLR and what something crazy like that... >> hehe... get our heads a bit distracted :D
>> P.S I get the point of the post Bill. I am a big beleiver of Patterns and >> know that the name is super important because at the end of the day patterns >> are there so that you do not say... I want I class which can be instinsiated >> only once, you just say I want a Singleton. Yet I don't see the difference >> between MVVM and ViewModel if the meaning will be the same.... I would stick >> with what is already out there....
>> just my 2 cents as my Karl Shiflett used to say... karl where are you???? >> MS you stole him from us :(
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I like it. I'm going to see if I can fit it into a blog post somewhere.
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ^^vv^^ works great as a symbol ;).
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is a >>>>> symbol.
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father >>>>>>> In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended >>>>>>> up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, >>>>>>> he's really quite intelligent).
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>>>>>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and >>>>>>>> squeeze him." >>>>>>>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>>>>>>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>>>>>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny >>>>>>>> Rabbit)!
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) >>>>>>>>>> that want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position >>>>>>>>>> where they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular >>>>>>>>>> demand". That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me >>>>>>>>>> wants to stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View >>>>>>>>>> Model is more likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue >>>>>>>>>> twisting M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no >>>>>>>>>> matter what I like.
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>>>>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that >>>>>>>>>>> changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of >>>>>>>>>>> view (or Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or >>>>>>>>>>> M-V-VM has now become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” >>>>>>>>>>> so I’ll stay with the current verbose name.
>>>>>>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
>> It's like suffixing your classes with Observer or Factory or Singleton -
totally unimaginative :)
That's a *benefit* in my opinion. I detest "imaginative" things that force me to think about things that I shouldn't bother thinking about. For me, keeping it brain-dead simple is crucial, because the problems involved with creating functional software is complicated enough already... :)
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Paul Stovell <stov...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to see "ViewModel" dropped just because I'm so sick of seeing code > like this:
> It's like suffixing your classes with Observer or Factory or Singleton - > totally unimaginative :)
> - Paul
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The importance here is that the name, by itself, doesn't convey any >> meaning. Consistent use of the name is what "binds" it to the meaning (what >> the pattern is). When a pattern has two names, you're not using the names >> consistently, and thus are diluting the "meaning" behind the name. It's >> worse when one of the names is used by a smaller community, while the other >> name is used by a larger community. Outside of WPF, this pattern is called >> Presentation Model. When someone from that larger community talks with, or >> worse, tries to join the WPF community, the name M-V-VM means nothing to >> them. When you try and explain the pattern to them, they find it difficult >> to understand, because you're describing something that sounds like a >> pattern they already know (because you ARE). Names are important. That's >> the whole point behind patterns, BTW. All of the patterns in GoF already >> existed when the book was published. What was revolutionary was that GoF >> finally applied NAMES to these patterns, which enabled us to discuss the >> patterns at a much higher level than we'd been able to previously.
>> Even if there weren't the issue of two names for the same pattern, I'd >> still argue that there's an issue with MVVM. That's such a difficult name >> that I can't tell you the number of times I've seen things like >> "ModelView-View-Model" used in discussions, which much like the two name >> dilemma, leads to confusion and break down in communication. In a vacuum, >> View Model seems ideal. Given history, Presentation Model is probably the >> better name. Given the momentum behind WPF and MVVM, ^^vv^^ may be here to >> stay.
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Marlon Grech <marlongr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> The way I see it MVVM is the name of the pattern (ok some may argue that >>> Presentation Model is the real pattern name which I don't agree 100% with, >>> but that is a different matter) who ever finds it hard to pronounce it, will >>> just call it ViewModel. I don't know how or why we should be saying that the >>> community should always say ViewModel.
>>> MVVM yet when I am speaking I call it VM or ViewModel... no need to make >>> a revolution :)
>>> I think MVVM is really getting the community going crazy lately.... let's >>> have some fun with reflection, DLR and what something crazy like that... >>> hehe... get our heads a bit distracted :D
>>> P.S I get the point of the post Bill. I am a big beleiver of Patterns and >>> know that the name is super important because at the end of the day patterns >>> are there so that you do not say... I want I class which can be instinsiated >>> only once, you just say I want a Singleton. Yet I don't see the difference >>> between MVVM and ViewModel if the meaning will be the same.... I would stick >>> with what is already out there....
>>> just my 2 cents as my Karl Shiflett used to say... karl where are you???? >>> MS you stole him from us :(
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com >>> > wrote:
>>>> I like it. I'm going to see if I can fit it into a blog post somewhere.
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ^^vv^^ works great as a symbol ;).
>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com >>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is >>>>>> a symbol.
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My >>>>>>>> Father In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things >>>>>>>> ended up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his >>>>>>>> part, he's really quite intelligent).
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> LOL. I prefer George.
>>>>>>>>> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and >>>>>>>>> squeeze him." >>>>>>>>> "And pat him, and pet him, and..." >>>>>>>>> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
>>>>>>>>> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny >>>>>>>>> Rabbit)!
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon < >>>>>>>>> pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) >>>>>>>>>>> that want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position >>>>>>>>>>> where they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular >>>>>>>>>>> demand". That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me >>>>>>>>>>> wants to stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View >>>>>>>>>>> Model is more likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue >>>>>>>>>>> twisting M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no >>>>>>>>>>> matter what I like.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli < >>>>>>>>>>> corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that >>>>>>>>>>>> changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of >>>>>>>>>>>> view (or Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or >>>>>>>>>>>> M-V-VM has now become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” >>>>>>>>>>>> so I’ll stay with the current verbose name.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Corrado
>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf >>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25 >>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
Nice to hear the wonderful term "gormless" bandied about on a technical discussion list - makes me feel right at home as an exiled North Yorkshireman...
From: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter O'Hanlon Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:02 PM To: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A Rose by any other name...
Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, he's really quite intelligent).
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com<mailto:weke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
LOL. I prefer George.
"I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze him." "And pat him, and pet him, and..." "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)! On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com<mailto:pete.ohan...@gmail.com>> wrote: I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com<mailto:weke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like. On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli <corradocava...@gmail.com<mailto:corradocava...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or Viewmodel if you like :)), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become the official name of the pattern by "popular demand" so I'll stay with the current verbose name.
-Corrado
From: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com<mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com> [mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com<mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.co m>] On Behalf Of Bill Kempf Sent: lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25
To: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com<mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com> Subject: [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
Mark.Wilson-Tho...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Nice to hear the wonderful term “gormless” bandied about on a technical > discussion list – makes me feel right at home as an exiled North > Yorkshireman…
> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: > wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter O'Hanlon > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 1:02 PM > *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: A Rose by any other name...
> Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In > Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up > being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, > he's really quite intelligent).
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL. I prefer George.
> "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze him."
> "And pat him, and pet him, and..."
> "And rub him, and caress him, and..."
> OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)!
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want > to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may > actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why > I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with > Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to > be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The > realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli <corradocava...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the > name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or > Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become > the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the > current verbose name.
> -Corrado
> *From:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto: > wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kempf > *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25
> *To:* wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
It is a benefit for me too. I don’t use “View” as a suffix though, because it really depends what the view does, but using the same same as the View plus a “ViewModel” suffix makes things easy and clear.
Cheers,
Laurent
From: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Smith Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:24 AM To: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A Rose by any other name...
>> It's like suffixing your classes with Observer or Factory or Singleton -
totally unimaginative :)
That's a benefit in my opinion. I detest "imaginative" things that force me to think about things that I shouldn't bother thinking about. For me, keeping it brain-dead simple is crucial, because the problems involved with creating functional software is complicated enough already... :)
Josh
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Paul Stovell <stov...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd like to see "ViewModel" dropped just because I'm so sick of seeing code like this:
It's like suffixing your classes with Observer or Factory or Singleton - totally unimaginative :)
- Paul
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
The importance here is that the name, by itself, doesn't convey any meaning. Consistent use of the name is what "binds" it to the meaning (what the pattern is). When a pattern has two names, you're not using the names consistently, and thus are diluting the "meaning" behind the name. It's worse when one of the names is used by a smaller community, while the other name is used by a larger community. Outside of WPF, this pattern is called Presentation Model. When someone from that larger community talks with, or worse, tries to join the WPF community, the name M-V-VM means nothing to them. When you try and explain the pattern to them, they find it difficult to understand, because you're describing something that sounds like a pattern they already know (because you ARE). Names are important. That's the whole point behind patterns, BTW. All of the patterns in GoF already existed when the book was published. What was revolutionary was that GoF finally applied NAMES to these patterns, which enabled us to discuss the patterns at a much higher level than we'd been able to previously.
Even if there weren't the issue of two names for the same pattern, I'd still argue that there's an issue with MVVM. That's such a difficult name that I can't tell you the number of times I've seen things like "ModelView-View-Model" used in discussions, which much like the two name dilemma, leads to confusion and break down in communication. In a vacuum, View Model seems ideal. Given history, Presentation Model is probably the better name. Given the momentum behind WPF and MVVM, ^^vv^^ may be here to stay.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Marlon Grech <marlongr...@gmail.com> wrote:
The way I see it MVVM is the name of the pattern (ok some may argue that Presentation Model is the real pattern name which I don't agree 100% with, but that is a different matter) who ever finds it hard to pronounce it, will just call it ViewModel. I don't know how or why we should be saying that the community should always say ViewModel.
MVVM yet when I am speaking I call it VM or ViewModel... no need to make a revolution :)
I think MVVM is really getting the community going crazy lately.... let's have some fun with reflection, DLR and what something crazy like that... hehe... get our heads a bit distracted :D
P.S I get the point of the post Bill. I am a big beleiver of Patterns and know that the name is super important because at the end of the day patterns are there so that you do not say... I want I class which can be instinsiated only once, you just say I want a Singleton. Yet I don't see the difference between MVVM and ViewModel if the meaning will be the same.... I would stick with what is already out there....
just my 2 cents as my Karl Shiflett used to say... karl where are you???? MS you stole him from us :(
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
I like it. I'm going to see if I can fit it into a blog post somewhere.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
^^vv^^ works great as a symbol ;).
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good point. NABR; The Pattern Formerly Known as MVVM. All it needs is a symbol.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, but is NABR gormless?
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Excellent Bugs reference, but I'm not so sure about George. My Father In Law was called George, and he complained that only gormless things ended up being called George (not that I'm implying any gormlessness on his part, he's really quite intelligent).
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL. I prefer George.
"I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze him."
"And pat him, and pet him, and..."
"And rub him, and caress him, and..."
OK, it's official. I want to drop M-V-VM for NABR (Not a Bunny Rabbit)!
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Peter O'Hanlon <pete.ohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
I say "Sod It. From now on, MVVM will be known as Bernard."
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's some "insiders" (can't explain more than that publicly) that want to change the name to just View Model. They're in a position where they may actually be able to do away with the current "popular demand". That's why I'm interested in discussing this. The academic in me wants to stick with Presentation Model. The pragmatist in me says View Model is more likely to be accepted and is certainly better than the tongue twisting M-V-VM. The realist in me says M-V-VM may be here to stay no matter what I like.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Corrado Cavalli <corradocava...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree on many points of your post but I also think that changing the name would result in additional confusion and, from my point of view (or Viewmodel if you like J), Model-View-ViewModel or M-V-VM has now become the official name of the pattern by “popular demand” so I’ll stay with the current verbose name.
-Corrado
From: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Kempf Sent: lunedì 4 maggio 2009 18:25
To: wpf-disciples@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] A Rose by any other name...
|
