[hidro]

Rails is built on top of Ruby language, designed to be opinionated, following MVC. You like it, you use it. You don't like it, try another framework.

Using the same analogy, Android is build on top of Java language, is 'opinionated': instead of designing with Model, View, Controller components, it's designed with 'unusual' components (as in not following any classic architectures) e.g. Activity, Service, ContentProvider. You like it, you use it. You don't like it, unfortunately you still have to use it. The real issue here is a lot of developers depend on Android framework, and many of them seem to struggle with the way it's structured, with no direct replacement (not taking into account hybrid frameworks here).

The way I see it, architecture is an opinionated topic. Sure classic architectures like MVC, MVP, MVVC are proven ones, but they serve as a guideline at most. There is no right or wrong if you follow this and not follow that. You are not happy with any of them, you make your own architecture/pattern. Hell it's opinionated, you are allowed to have an opinion here! If you think MVC or some other pattern is the right way to go, then the author has the right to think her design is the right way. It just keeps going on.

[emidln]

> You like it, you use it. You don't like it, unfortunately you still have to use it.

You always have the option of falling back to OpenGL-rendered widgets and using a framework with MVC if you want to. Qt supports this, for instance.