WHY IS EVERYBODY SILENT? SCREAM!

I will post a link to a question on StackOverflow and a linked article. Both illustrate the madness introduced and promoted by Microsoft, with the silent approval of the IT industry sector.

Is it wrong to invoke an async method from a property setter?

Async programming patters for asynchronous MVVM applications data binding

Both prove my point: the only reason why the so-called 'development community' got hooked up on and swallowed WPF, MVVM, and async is that Microsoft was able to blow ginormous amounts of money on PR. They used armies of trolls on StackOverflow, to indoctrinate beginner developers in firm belief that the above 3 concepts are the best things since sliced bread. Truth is that they are not. Truth is that Microsoft dropped the ball on everything since early days of .NET. Those same armies of trolls downvote every question that has to do with the shortcomings of the said concepts, to silence every possibility of criticizing MS for its transgressions.

Async is called plague or cancer for a reason: if you want to call something asynchronous, then you have to await it, and you can only await in a method that is async. So, your entire hierarchy of methods has to become async, or you face hard-to-track, hard-to-find, and hard-to-debug problems such as deadlocks.

Well, MS trolls tell you to use async bottom-up.

That'd be nice! But they forget that we deal with millions of lines of legacy code that no one pays to rewrite. We deal with already-synchronous applications that suddenly have to use async libraries. And the world pays the price equal to billions of $$$ for rewriting code that would have had to be touched had not Microsoft released their cancer into the world.

Get that: WPF MVVM dictates that views must be databound to the viewmodels. That is done through property getters and setters. But the getters and setters cannot be async!!! How do you call async methods from them?

In the linked articles above, MS trolls hammer home the point that setters must not call long-lasting async methods. But that is a lie! async and long-lasting are not equal. Something may take a fraction of a second but still be code as async. They are apples and oranges, but the 'do as I say' attitude of Microsoft is above all.

Read the linked articles to realize how much more boilerplate code each developer now has to write, to comply with the shortcomings of the half-baked, half-assed async paradigm and WPF MVVM pattern, courtesy Microsoft.

The world is paying for not breaking Microsoft up into several companies, many years ago, when it was still possible. It still is not too late. Break them up now!

Posted by: LinuxLies at 04:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.