[brightball]

>> RoR did not invent MVC.

Well aware of that. Was pointing out that Microsoft named their framework MVC as if they did.

[dragonwriter]

They named their framework ASP.Net MVC, as it is an MVC framework for ASP.Net, The naming isn't that problematic.

Lots of people in the close-minded cult of Microsoft (which does not include all Microsoft devs.) both shorten the name to "MVC" (which isn't necessarily bad in certain contexts) and have little-to-no understanding of what MVC is other than ASP.Net MVC, so both themselves confuse the pattern with the Microsoft product and promote others doing the same thing.

Roughly the same thing happens with Microsoft SQL Server (which becomes just "SQL").

[lenocinor]

And there's Spring MVC too. It's not like only Microsoft is doing that sort of thing.

[brightball]

Most people just call that Spring or Spring framework though (in my experience).

[jussij]

>> MVC - MVC4 is a .NET Rails clone. Named MVC as if Microsoft originated the design pattern that was used to clone another framework.

You use of the English language is rather confusing.

[radicalbyte]

Except they didn't.

They named it ASP.Net MVC.

<Platform> <Pattern>

Their other framework follows the same pattern:

ASP.Net WebForms

[jussij]

I agree. From what I have seen every version of ASP.Net has been radically different from the previous and hence the name change.

Should they be changing technology so rapidly? You would hope not, but is the technology getting better, you would have to say yes it is.

But sometimes it is hard to keep up!!