A Framework is not an architecture


Comments are closed.

This history of MVC was interesting, but the arguments about it's common usage and original meaning was pedantic. Would have been better to further discuss how the pattern could be adapted to a web/api/web service world, and not the ancient past. I agree that frameworks do not ensure architecture, but there are common patterns based around "MVC" that frameworks try to drive and it would have been more technically enlightening to talk about those patterns and perhaps anti patterns.

I very much enjoyed the talk on anti-patterns - a lot of new developers tend to swallow whatever new cool kool-aid comes along without understanding both the history and true meaning of what the pattern is - granted names aren't that important but understanding the concepts behind each pattern IS important

It took me several years to feel like I really grasped the MVC concept, and several more years to realize that I still don't. Stefan's explanation of the original concept of MVC was an eye-opener. If you can't explain a concept, you don't really understand it. From the examples that Stefan gave, nobody understands MVC for the web, because it's really a misapplied term (no wonder it's impossible to find a consistent explanation). As he mentioned during the talk, it would have been great to have a white board to outline all the inconsistencies between traditional MVC and what we actually do on the web.

A great and funny talk, explaining exactly what I felt was not correct in the world of frameworks. Thanks for sharing