I'm been developing Ruby on Rails previously. I'm now looking at an ASP.net web app and I'm looking at WebForms and MVC. As I look at MVC it feels as if I'm looking at the result of something a Ruby on Rails developer implemented after being forced to work in MS land. So I'm wondering:
Was MVC more or less taken directly from Ruby on Rails and it's concepts? (either intentionally or unintentionally)
MVC has obviously existed long before Rails or ASP.NET MVC.
ASP.NET MVC is however, influenced by Ruby on Rails, but that really isn't a bad thing. Specification of routing is handled in a similar way, helpers are similar. While all MVC frameworks are similar, ASP.NET MVC feels as close to Rails as you could achieve in a language such as C#.
I agree that the MVC pattern's been around a while and it's a good architecture for web apps, but if you look at ASP.NET MVC, you soon come to the conclusion that they could have named it Rails.NET
I have worked with Struts, Spring, RoR and now asp.net MVC. I feel that there is enough room for different concepts, even if the main concept and brandname for a framework is MVC.
As it goes to asp.net MVC, it seems that RoR was taken as the reference implementation of web MVC.
No, MVC is a design pattern that works very well for web applications. Ruby on Rails i think was an early adopter that showed how well suited it was for a web architecture, and was probably an influence on MS implementation, but did not come up with the design.
