&gt;If &quot;MVC is just exactly the same as separation of concerns&quot;, then, again, we don&#x27;t need &quot;MVC&quot; as a concept. We already have &quot;separation of concerns&quot;.<p>MVC is an example of separation of concerns, specifically applied to separating the computation of data from the input and output of that data. I don&#x27;t see how this is such a difficult thing to understand.<p>(Edit: Heck, even Wikipedia calls it &quot;a software architectural pattern mostly for implementing user interfaces <i>(but not only for user interfaces).</i> It divides a given software application into three interconnected parts, <i>so as to separate internal representations of information from the ways that information is presented to or accepted from the user.</i>&quot; Emphasis mine.)<p>&gt;Again, this is why I find the term loathsome as it is actually used.<p>From this and sibling post I seem to detect some hostility against the term due to there being articles about &quot;you&#x27;re doing MVC wrong.&quot; You can find those a dime a dozen on any topic. Don&#x27;t misdirect your anger.<p>&gt;Anyone who actually tries to nail down &quot;what exactly is MVC&quot; will find themselves coming up empty.<p>See above, as well as my previous posts in this thread.<p>&gt;You&#x27;ve progressively shrunk the goalposts in every post in this series until you can&#x27;t help but hit MVC. That&#x27;s not useful.<p>On the contrary, I&#x27;ve been consistent from the very first post what MVC is and how it applies to software. You&#x27;re the one here insisting that it&#x27;s something magic that needs to be different from what I&#x27;ve been saying it is.