This is a horribly uninformed opinion piece with no substantial data to back up any claims. MVC is a huge step forward for MS. 10 releases prior to 1.0. The source is available (yes, they don't take contributions). It has 94% code coverage. It's brand new and it's true the docs need some improvements. .NET has three ORMs built in (L2S, EF and typed Datasets, which are crap, but they're there) that you can use for the model. Validation and scaffolding are there (not sure how they missed that) and there's excellent 3rd party validation tools (like xVal). C# 3.0 is awesome (LINQ rules and it's more than just LINQ to SQL) and hardly verbose.<p>I hope people don't read this blog post and dismiss ASP.NET MVC because of it, because the post is just plain wrong.<p>EDIT: Here's an example of how the docs are already being worked on: <a href="http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/03/10/free-asp-net-mvc-ebook-tutorial.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/03/10/free-asp-n...</a> Completely free and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives.
This post seems to basically be "I love rails and ASP.NET is not Rails so it's inferior." Now I'm not saying the author is wrong for loving Rails, just that there was no way ASP.NET MVC could win in a rigged game so the comparison doesn't hold much weight.<p>To be a tad more specific...<p>1. A few of his issues are just wrong. The MVC team has been very open about including the community and taking contributions for example.<p>2. A lot of the author's comparisons are unfair because he's comparing a product that essesntially had it's first official release a few days ago to Rails. So complaints like "the community is too small" or "Microsoft might kill the project as a cost cutting measure" are not fair<p>3. A lot of his arguments are really the age old static vs dynamic language debate. I won't open that can of worms now but needless to say both sides have valid opinions. So it isn't fair to ding C# for that.<p>4. On another point Rails is what most call "opinionated software" while ASP.NET strives to give a lot of choices. So dinging ASP.NET for allowing the programmer to choose an ORM package that fits their needs doesn't seem really fair (Microsoft does provide one in the form of the Entity Framework)
Quote: "13. As the MVC project is very much a reactionary response to staunch the outflow of devs to other MVC frameworks, there is a worry that MS will drop the project if forced to make a cost cutting decision (see licensing comment 6). They are certainly not going to drop normal ASP.NET."
It's a decent comparison, but now that MVC has a full release, the documentation has gotten significantly better. <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd394709.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd394709.aspx</a><p>I will disagree about ORM- there are already plenty of ORM and ORM-like frameworks out there for .NET, and I don't think the MVC team wanted to add another one.<p>Not sure about the routing being verbose. I'm (hopefully) close to finishing up a fairly complicated app with the framework, and routing hasn't been a problem for me.<p>I will definitely agree with point 12 though, but that's because the WebForms model causes brain damage if you use it for too long.
Some of his complaints seem to be about C#, which is not required. Also, the exclusion of an ORM is probably a good thing, so you can choose whatever you want, similar to the view engine.