Interestingly, most of what they claim about MVC is false, and the problems they see with what they call MVC are mostly solved by following actual MVC, others by specific implementations of MVC.
I had only seen these misunderstandings in talks (particularly the "cascading", which true MVC absolutely prevents), which are difficult to refer to, so thanks for the link!
As I wrote elsewhere[1] : "having to say "the problems of MVC are solved by MVC" is less than ideal, because, well, you sound a bit like a lunatic."
This is what bugs me most about these talks. I don’t mind when some guys do something their way, unique or not. But when they spread fucking lies about prior tech to very large auditories, it makes me think about either a conspiracy or their complete lack of competence in this area.
2. Controllers, like views and model(s) are roles, not components. These roles can be filled by the same objects.
3. So people not agreeing where things go is perfectly compatible with MVC, and thinking that's a problem is a symptom of not understanding MVC.
4. I personally try to put as much as possible (and a bit more) into the model. Hexagonal for the win! Naked objects are also pretty nice, though I tend not to be quite that radical.
If the M the V and the C are roles with not fixed functionality or purpose (given that you apparently can put anything you want in them) then what _is_ MVC?
[1] http://fluxxor.com/what-is-flux.html