[btilly]

Disclaimer: I came to hate Microsoft back when it was first fashionable to do so. I've grown up, and still don't like them.

Here is my pet peeve.

MVC is a well-understood idea in web development that traces its inspiration back to Smalltalk in the 70s. There are many MVC frameworks in many languages, which differ in various details. All of which, to avoid confusion, called themselves things other than MVC. Examples include Catalyst, Django, Ruby on Rails, Struts, CodeIgniter and many, many more. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_f... for more.

Why did Microsoft have the gall to try to confuse everyone by calling their product MVC? Yes, you've got models, views and controllers. So does everyone else. Yours don't work exactly like anyone else's. (Everyone else's work differently from each others as well.) Yours wasn't even the first one available for .NET. Get a less confusing name.

[rpeden]

To be fair, they named it ASP.NET MVC, not just MVC. Considering that it is Microsoft's official MVC web framework on the ASP.NET web stack, I don't think it is an unreasonable name.

[jiayo]

Rails calls themselves MVC: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#the-mvc-a...

I don't see the issue with calling it "ASP.NET MVC". The Visual Basic event-driven style of programming is fundamentally different from MVC. Calling it MVC provides context.

Would you have preferred they come up with a "cute" name that doesn't explain what it is?

[cheald]

Rails claims to implement the MVC design patterns. It does not claim to be named "Ruby on Rails MVC".