|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.|
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Model–view–controller article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Mohammedhhassan.|
It is frustrating when people assume things. Young people assume that old techniques can't be as good as anything new.
The history (currently) says that "MVC became one of the first approaches to describe and implement software constructs in terms of their responsibilities". Based on the description here of MVC, Microsoft's MFC Document\View Architecture qualifies. It has documents and views at least. I doubt that MVC was truly the first to do what it does, the writer is just assuming it was. It is often difficult to prove a negative but is there anything authoritive saying that there was little or nothing before MVC that does what MVC does? Sam Tomato (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- MVC was introduced in 1979 and its inventor is approaching 90 years old. MFC was introduced in 1992 so I fail to see the relevance. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you are failing to see the relevance. I believe what Sam Tomato was ultimately saying (and if not, I'll say it now) was that the very notion that MVC was one of the first approaches to describe software constructs in terms of their responsibilities is completely unsupported as it stood, and IMO unsupportable. The fact that there was *some* concept of MVC back in Xerox PARC days in the 70's is interesting, but to believe that this was somehow the start of responsibility-defined "software constructs" is to ignore nearly every operating system and every embedded system written prior. It's yet another case of wikipedia authors attempting to invent concepts out of supposition.
- Keep in mind that the only cited reference on that was a set of opinions written on c2.com! Hardly a citable source, unless you believe that wiki from wiki information formation is sensible.
- It's his specifi and initial point that the tone of that statement implies that there was a longevity to the concept as a whole. When you mention something as "one of the first" of anything, you better be specific as to what you're mentioning. And MVC is (and always as been) specific to UIs (and almost entirely GUI's. NOT "software constructs" as a whole.Tgm1024 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In the MVC graph, is the edge connecting the View and User nodes misdirected?
As I read the graph, it seems to me that the edge connecting the View node to the User node is misdirected. That is, as I read it, "the View sees the User" because the edge is directed from View to User. If the direction were reversed, it would read "the User sees the View". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Charles Knell
The arrow is correct because it points in the direction of processing. The label is wrong; it should be "informs," "renders" or something similar. People keep pointing this out, but no one ever does anything about it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the controller interact with both the view and the model? This image doesn't make sense to me because it implies that the model directly updates the view and the user directly interacts with the controller. The user only sees the view. The controller should be the interface between the view and the model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the image is intentionally simplistic to aid in understanding of the main flow of information. The Controller would need information from the View in order to interpret the information from the User within the context of the View. The Controller could also provide information to the View to manipulate the View without updating anything in the Model. Would an adding two more arrows make the figure easier to understand, or might it be more confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's only the wrong phrasing. The verb sees implies an action based upon the source side of the arrow, plain and simple. I've never entered an image before in wikipedia, but can we please change "SEES" to "PRESENTS TO"?Tgm1024 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)