Great article - because the MVC has a place, but not as the only way to make robust, easy to code and recode, web applications. MVC is not the same thing as a framework either - and because Rails,Cake, or Django chooses an implementation strategy, the "design pattern" origins of MVC get lost. Agile gets thrown in there, and it's messy definitions time.
At least MVC being tossed around doesn't offend me as much as the "Enterprise" and "OOP" Java bureaucrat's rabidness.
At least with electrical engineering there are blueprints and "parts". UML does't let me work the way I think (although, when I have enough time, I don't mind it). Can anyone recommend something better than wireframing, IA, and psuedo code for code design? I think that's what's required when you need to pacify those afraid of venturing beyond MVC.
I'm glad Malcolm wrote this because I was starting to think that I was the only person who thought that the term MVC was not well understood and differed from the original meaning.
When it comes to most people's use of the term, MVC means little more than separating business logic from display logic, plus an ad hoc definition of controller.
At least with electrical engineering there are blueprints and "parts". UML does't let me work the way I think (although, when I have enough time, I don't mind it). Can anyone recommend something better than wireframing, IA, and psuedo code for code design? I think that's what's required when you need to pacify those afraid of venturing beyond MVC.