originally posted by Josh Smith: (link) - please comment at original post
A few days ago I received a comment from someone named Joe on my blog. He was expressing concern over several aspects of my book Advanced MVVM, including the fact that it is written about a relatively simple game, not something more complicated. After Joe read the book his apprehensions about it disappeared, and he kindly left me this comment:
Ok, after reading your book, I have to say “Wow!” Not only have you managed to help me understand some of the frustrations I had with MVVM development, but your book also made some good points (which I shared with my development manager) and reinforced with real examples of issues I faced working on a project using that pattern.
I was very (pleasantly) surprised reading your take on the code-behind vs. NO code-behind mentality. I myself prefer the middle ground, but for some time was forced to do the latter. Yes, it did create several layers of very difficult to follow, understand and maintain code; from your notes and my examples, I was able to reach a compromise on how we should utilize ‘code-behind’.
Now, an interesting story –our architect chose the MVVM pattern after reading your article in MSDN in 2009. However, they chose to enforce “no code-behind” at all for the sake of testability.
The book is awesome; if you can mix MVVM with Prism and come up with a nice 300+ page book with some nice distilled information like that, I’d a) like to help write it; and b) shell out at least $50.00.
P.S. you’re right, there is no “Silver Bullet”; however, it would be nice to have some guide or set of documentation as to what works well when and where, especially when certain design patterns are applied to solve a problem.
It sounds like Advanced MVVM has another happy customer!
Remember to please comment at original post: (link)