Very interesting talk. There were a whole lot of valid points & statements, but the talk could be more fluid. I think the title could be a little confusing to some people who don't know you are a software architect. Maybe focus a little more on the DDD and the ubiquitous language around tasks/commands & CQRS.
I liked the content of the talk and I loved the subject. Points for improvement in my opinion:
- Show more UI :) The one example you did have made a lot of the theory before that more easy to understand.
- I missed a compelling "why do DDD". I think I believe in it, don't get me wrong, but it could have been more persuasive.
Good introduction to CQRS for newbies. However, the introductory description of the talk seems to be a bit misleading about the actual topic. I expected the talk would focus more on task based UI design, with a lot of practical examples, the dos and don'ts, maybe some deeper insights on how to handle concurrent editing, updating the UI when using an asynchronous command bus, etc. Maybe my expectations were just too high :)
Perhaps the title of this talk should be changed, since there were quite some people who didn't understand the real topic. Personally I'm very interested in all the DDD stuff happening in php lately so I enjoyed the talk. Content was good, speaker skills also good.
A fuzzy introduction to the command and interpreter design pattern that could have been a lot better structured. The title of the talk was very confusing and I was expecting a mature talk about the architecture of task oriented user interfaces, not about a few technicalities in the code that stem from using such interfaces.
Some personal advice for Stijn... A bit more studying and practicing, you are still young, the architect already hides in you, but must be cultivated a bit more. Keep it up!
I was thrown off by the "UIs" in the title, and the phrase is repeated in the description. I know a bit about CQRS and was attracted by that UI side, but unfortunately the talk contained almost nothing on that subject. To be fair, we were warned at the start of the talk, but I'm not that big on standing up and leaving.
The talk itself wasn't bad, it explained the basics of CQRS well. But is wasn't awesome either. It could've been a bit more fluent (just practice!), and maybe add some sugar to it (in stead of plainly explaining what it is). And definitively change the title/description to reflect the talk better.
PS: I hope I'm not received as harsh, the (negative) feedback is meant to help!
I have seen a lot of talks on this subject and I felt that this one had better code than most. However, I would have liked to see a little more focus on philosophy about how crud thinking makes it difficult to reason about applications for both the users and the developers.
As said before, the title and abstract are a bit misleading. I'm one of the people expecting more insights into UI/UX. Since I'm way less familiar with the actual content of the talk, I find it quite hard to give you feedback on the contents. I'm sorry.
What would be a great improvement to your presentation is practicing your English. I feel there's a lot to be gained there and it would make your presentations a bit easier to listen to.
I thought it was a great talk and think that it would be a great introduction to someone who was interested in task based UIs, have been considering whether CQRS was worth it, or have been looking for good reasons to pitch CQRS on their next project.
Comments
Comments are closed.
Very interesting talk. There were a whole lot of valid points & statements, but the talk could be more fluid. I think the title could be a little confusing to some people who don't know you are a software architect. Maybe focus a little more on the DDD and the ubiquitous language around tasks/commands & CQRS.
Solid presentation, good content.
It was an interesting talk. The only thing disappointing was that I was expecting to see some UI examples and didn't get any.
interesting concepts, little misleading title tough
I liked the content of the talk and I loved the subject. Points for improvement in my opinion:
- Show more UI :) The one example you did have made a lot of the theory before that more easy to understand.
- I missed a compelling "why do DDD". I think I believe in it, don't get me wrong, but it could have been more persuasive.
Thanks for reminding me an application can do so much better then just showing a list and an edit form! :-)
I was one of the people who was expecting a talk on UI :(
The content of this talk is very good but it could be brought better. It felt like Stijn was either very nervous or unprepared.
Good introduction to CQRS for newbies. However, the introductory description of the talk seems to be a bit misleading about the actual topic. I expected the talk would focus more on task based UI design, with a lot of practical examples, the dos and don'ts, maybe some deeper insights on how to handle concurrent editing, updating the UI when using an asynchronous command bus, etc. Maybe my expectations were just too high :)
Perhaps the title of this talk should be changed, since there were quite some people who didn't understand the real topic. Personally I'm very interested in all the DDD stuff happening in php lately so I enjoyed the talk. Content was good, speaker skills also good.
A fuzzy introduction to the command and interpreter design pattern that could have been a lot better structured. The title of the talk was very confusing and I was expecting a mature talk about the architecture of task oriented user interfaces, not about a few technicalities in the code that stem from using such interfaces.
Some personal advice for Stijn... A bit more studying and practicing, you are still young, the architect already hides in you, but must be cultivated a bit more. Keep it up!
I was thrown off by the "UIs" in the title, and the phrase is repeated in the description. I know a bit about CQRS and was attracted by that UI side, but unfortunately the talk contained almost nothing on that subject. To be fair, we were warned at the start of the talk, but I'm not that big on standing up and leaving.
The talk itself wasn't bad, it explained the basics of CQRS well. But is wasn't awesome either. It could've been a bit more fluent (just practice!), and maybe add some sugar to it (in stead of plainly explaining what it is). And definitively change the title/description to reflect the talk better.
PS: I hope I'm not received as harsh, the (negative) feedback is meant to help!
I have seen a lot of talks on this subject and I felt that this one had better code than most. However, I would have liked to see a little more focus on philosophy about how crud thinking makes it difficult to reason about applications for both the users and the developers.
As said before, the title and abstract are a bit misleading. I'm one of the people expecting more insights into UI/UX. Since I'm way less familiar with the actual content of the talk, I find it quite hard to give you feedback on the contents. I'm sorry.
What would be a great improvement to your presentation is practicing your English. I feel there's a lot to be gained there and it would make your presentations a bit easier to listen to.
I thought it was a great talk and think that it would be a great introduction to someone who was interested in task based UIs, have been considering whether CQRS was worth it, or have been looking for good reasons to pitch CQRS on their next project.