Apparently Facebook has a bunch of functional-style programmers, not writing in ClosureScript though! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvHPPcl2TM
http://youtu.be/nYkdrAPrdcw?t=40m30s > [Starts at 40 minute 30 seconds. Person asks question then Jing Chen > laughs at question, she must know how much Pete doesn’t like Angular.] > So, the question was comparing and contrasting…React plus Flux and > Angular. …[T]hey do solve some of the same > problems but they go at it in very different ways. So React is focused a > lot on treating your code as a black box. So, there’s no sort of > observable abstraction inside of react you simply say, “Hey, rerender > the UI and you present a consistent view of what you want your UI to > look like.” With Angular you are basically passing data throughout these > things called scopes which observe your data model and I think… > that’s a very leaky abstraction. It forces you to compose your > application not in terms of functions and objects but in terms of > directives and model-view-controller and their flavor of > model-view-controller. So, while it does work for a certain class of > applications as you scale up you start to miss the past 40 or 50 years > of research and how to abstract a program. So if you… > push that kind of data binding concern out to the edges of your > system like React does I think it leads to faster iteration time.\ > – Pete > Hunt - Engineering Manager, Rethinking Web App Development at Facebook, > Facebook
Leo Horie (creator of Mithril on Flux/React) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7720559
I really like this architecture - it’s clearly based on lessons learned from the same types of pains that I myself encountered w/ non-trivial jQuery, and the unidirectional data flow makes it a lot easier to reason about the code. It’s very similar to what I’m doing with my own micro mvc framework Mithril ( http://lhorie.github.io/mithril ).
One thing that raise my eyebrows about this article though is how says that Flux eschews MVC, and then goes on to say that it has stores that are “somewhat similar to a model”, and “the dispatcher exposes a method that allows a view to trigger a dispatch to the stores”, which, as far as classic MVC goes, is the exact definition of a controller. What they call controller-view is, imho, just an implementation detail within the view layer: in classic MVC, views were responsible for subscribing to model observables, or, as the article puts it, it “listens for events that are broadcast by the stores that it depends on”.
When talking about this architecture with the Mithril community, I find that referring back to the MVC pattern makes it even easier to reason about the flow of data: it’s basically M -> V -> C -> M …
It’s unfortunate that the general understanding of the MVC pattern became misunderstood over the course of many frameworks. The whole point of design patterns should be that we could just name them for people to “get” it, rather than having to reinvent new ways of naming things and having everyone relearn the nomenclature.