>If "MVC is just exactly the same as separation of concerns", then, again, we don't need "MVC" as a concept. We already have "separation of concerns". MVC is a

>If "MVC is just exactly the same as separation of concerns", then, again, we don't need "MVC" as a concept. We already have "separation of concerns". MVC is an example of separation of concerns, specifically applied to separating the computation of data from the input and output of that data. I don't see how this is such a difficult thing to understand. (Edit: Heck, even Wikipedia calls it "a software architectural pattern mostly for implementing user interfaces (but not only for user interfaces). It divides a given software application into three interconnected parts, so as to separate internal representations of information from the ways that information is presented to or accepted from the user." Emphasis mine.) >Again, this is why I find the term loathsome as it is actually used. From this and sibling post I seem to detect some hostility against the term due to there being articles about "you're doing MVC wrong." You can find those a dime a dozen on any topic. Don't misdirect your anger. >Anyone who actually tries to nail down "what exactly is MVC" will find themselves coming up empty. See above, as well as my previous posts in this thread. >You've progressively shrunk the goalposts in every post in this series until you can't help but hit MVC. That's not useful. On the contrary, I've been consistent from the very first post what MVC is and how it applies to software. You're the one here insisting that it's something magic that needs to be different from what I've been saying it is.