Allow me to introduce you to the Framework Adoption Antipattern. And with it I will share some software history that you youngin's might do well to learn.
The software industry is built around cycles of new adoption. The churn creates an artificial pressure to keep up with the latest and greatest. There's always a new hotness. There's also the illusion that this time around maybe we'll get started on the right foot. Maybe this new hotness will not lead us into a tangled mess.
For those of us who've been to more than one rodeo, it's a depressing to watch history repeat itself in the new hotness, just like it did in the old and busted. The next wave is super tempting. Get ahead of the crowd and you can become the hot shot writing books or speaking at conferences. The early adopters always seem like the coolest kids on the block. Added bonus, you can ditch the tangled mess you're in and start fresh. But every revolution becomes the new establishment. Which is why we keep going in circles.
Advice for a young programmer
I know how this sounds to you. I'm just old and crotchety. I don't get it. I'm part of the establishment. This is a new world. What you're building is really going to change everything.
You're right. You are going to change everything. But you will also learn the truth in the cliche: the more things change the more they stay the same. In five or ten years you will look back at what you've created and see some depressingly familiar tangles. And there will be another new hotness. Your once revolutionary new hotness will grow up to become the new old and busted.
This story is for the long term. As an industry we still don't know how to teach what we do. The only way to learn these lessons is to join a revolution and experience the transformation to establishment. This advice-disguised-as-a-story is for programmers starting their second rodeo.
Historical background on the path to MVC architecture for web apps
Sherman, set the WAYBAC machine to 1995. It was a momentous year.
Three items launched with particular fanfare: the Internet was
commercialized, Sun released Java, and Netscape released
released one year earlier. The first public announcements of PHP and
ruby were also in 1995. And the first working draft of XML was in
1996. All of these things in their respective communities were the
new hotness. All of them are now the establishment. I'll also mention that
was published in late 1994 'cos it comes into the story later.
At the time enterprise computing was dominated by two-tier, client-server architecture: a fat Windows client connecting to a fat database. Over the next few years web applications would be dominated by Perl CGI and Cold Fusion and its copycats: ASP, JSP, and PHP. Sun, IBM, Oracle, WebLogic, BEA and others jumped on the new three-tier architecture. They were selling java middleware in hopes of breaking Microsoft's grip on desktop computing. Instead of a fat Windows client, businesses could use the web browser that's installed with the OS and move their applications onto expensive servers.
By the turn of the century, Internet Explorer had nearly won the browser wars. Netscape would be bought by AOL in a few years. On the server side, Sun and friends were facing backlash against Enterprise Java Beans (EJBs) and Microsoft started its push to move the ASP community to .NET. Sun began evangelizing the Model 2 architecture as the new hotness: separate the display of content from the business logic. It was a fashionable pitch at the time: CSS was promising similar benefits of separating design from markup.
Sun's model 2 marketing and MVC
It was right at the turn of the century when our cultural wires got crossed and we started using the MVC pattern to describe web architecture. MVC was a profound innovation in object-oriented user interface design from Smalltalk-80. That dash eighty refers to 1980 so we're clear that the pattern was already twenty years old at the time. In fact, MVC is used in Design Patterns as an example to help explain what a design pattern is. This was a rare moment when the new hotness was consciously applying lessons from software history.
In the final days of 1999, JavaWorld published Understanding JavaServer Pages Model 2 architecture. In May of 2000, Craig McClanahan from Sun, donated a reference implementation of Sun's Model 2 architecture to the Apache Software Foundation. Struts would become the de-facto standard for java web frameworks. No question it was a terrific improvement to apply the MVC pattern to web apps in contrast to the Cold-Fusion-JSP-ASP-PHP tag-soup model 1. And yet, and yet....
In Sun's marketing and the hype around Struts, Model 2 was described as an architecture. In every explanation the MVC pattern was used to explain the architecture. And so the Model 2 architecture, the MVC pattern, and the Struts framework were all conceptually muddled in the Java community.
And then Rails was the new hotness
Another half-decade later when Rails burst onto the scene, MVC was taken for granted as the de facto best practice for web application architecture. A new generation of programmers were introduced to web applications and MVC-as-architecture and The Rails Way at the same time.
What's wrong with MVC and Model 2 for web applications?
MVC originally lived in a Smalltalk image, which is sorta like that virtual machine you have up in the cloud running your modern web applications. Only it was a lot less complicated. Importantly the M and the V and the C were all living in the same image. When messages were passed between the different components in an MVC pattern in Smalltalk, the messages didn't have far to go.
Model 2 by contrast was full of network latency because it grew up when Sun was trying to sell hardware into the enterprise. There were browsers on the desktop and there was middleware running java on expensive hardware, and then a database (probably Oracle) running on another bit of expensive hardware.
Web frameworks have been contending with two key pieces of friction for the past decade or so. On the client side there's the statelessness of HTTP and on the back end there's the object-relational mapping to get data back and forth from a pile of object-oriented business logic on the server into a pile of relational algebra in the database.
MVC in Smalltalk suffered from neither of those key problems. Data were persisted within the image right along side the class definitions, and the View and Controller were in direct and very stateful communication.
Ever since the Model 2 architecture co-opted MVC, Model has come to mean some object-relational mapping, View is something from the menagerie of templating languages, and the Controller... Ahh the controller...
Controller as a term is meaningless. No, it's worse than that. Controller is actively destructive. I know exactly what a Controller is, and so do you. But my Controller is different from your Controller. We're using the same word to describe completely different things. The only common ground we have is that we know there's something between the Model and the View.
MVC is not an architecture and neither is your framework
MVC is a pattern. It's beautiful and full of wisdom. It's an exceptionally good example to teach the principle of separating concerns. But the coopting of MVC into an architectural framework effectively blinded us to the principles and left us with software dogma. And such powerful dogma that the Rails revolutionaries embraced the dogma wholesale even as their rhetoric railed against excessive ceremony and dogma in the java community.
If you looked at a typical rails app you'd think that MVC and ActiveRecord were the only design patterns you need. And as applications have grown from simple foundations in Rails into enterprise-sized beasts, we hear about developers reaching for Plain Old Ruby Objects to speed up their test suites. There's buzz about refactoring away from fat controllers and fat models. Rails apps have become most of what it originally opposed.
What's more insidious is the pervasive use of object inheritance in
web frameworks. Design Patterns has been published for almost two
decades and itself summarized wisdom from the previous two decades of
object-oriented design. A core principle espoused therein is to
prefer composition to inheritance and yet frameworks continue to
recommend their developers inherit. This and a database schema is all
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base; end
Yep, Rails apps are a tangled mess. Let's switch to the New Hotness.