Los Techies

If you have a list of thousands of items, attaching event handlers to each of those items separately is relatively expensive, although it makes the view code nicer. If you are as serious about performance as these people, you would want to add delegated events on the parent level. There is a writeup about doing this in Backbone [1] although I can't vouch for it.

In fairness, getting really good dom performance out of Backbone is hard because of the lack of built-in delegated event support and the non-synchronized redraws. If you have big apps that need to be super-fast, either read up on dom performance practices and adopt some helper libraries along with Backbone, or try a framework that has its own draw cycle and delegated event support.

[1] http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/10/11/backbone-js-getting-the-model-for-a-clicked-element/

StructureMap supports property injection in addition to constructor injection.

http://structuremap.github.io/setter-injection/

It's beef awhile since I've used it, but was using it for web forms where we didn't want to deal with creating our own page factory.

Also, the way I've typically written unit tests is with StructureMap auto mocking which will automatically inject mocks into your constructor so you don't have a bunch of compile errors if you add a dependency.

https://lostechies.com/joshuaflanagan/2009/02/04/auto-mocking-explained/

But, I'm not trying to bash your project, it's always fun to dig into the internals and set this sort of stuff up on your own.

Heh.

https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/url-regex

https://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2010/11/20/parsing-a-url-with-a-regex/

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27745/getting-parts-of-a-url-regex

What do all these have in common? They all demonstrate that it is hard to write a regex that parses URLs.

Regex's hide programming mistakes because they not only become harder for humans to parse as they get more complicated, but also there isn't simple programming code to handle potential security vulnerabilities in-line with the code. It also hides the [at least] two considerations of secure programming: designing a secure function, and handling the function securely.

Precisely. This may sound pedantic or academic, but in practice when static overloading and dynamic dispatch differ, the static behavior is usually not what you want. In my experience, this makes it painful to make code that is polymorphic in multiple arguments behave correctly in C++ (double dispatch [1] is one of the necessary but awkward tactics that's used), whereas multiple dispatch just works. And of course, almost working and actually working are a world apart even though they sound so close.

[1] http://lostechies.com/derekgreer/2010/04/19/double-dispatch-is-a-code-smell/

If the parent is the only place where there's a reference to the child view, then yes. However like the article says, you often have things like event listeners that, if the child view doesn't clean up, will prevent the child view from getting collected. (And often, the listeners still do stuff causing buggy behavior.)

This is fixed by ensuring there's an off()/unbind() for every on()/bind(). I do this by following a pattern like the one in this article: http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/09/15/zombies-run-managing-page-transitions-in-backbone-apps/

exposing methods for the purpose of testing is bad design, whether or not you are only doing it in a test environment. if you have a method that is sufficiently complex and warrants its own testing, put it in it's own module file and test that module file on it's own - no need to break your design and modify your runtime module exports based on runtime environment checks

http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2014/01/03/semantics-modules-and-testing-why-and-how-i-test-internal-components-not-private-methods/