Okay, well as I suspected, we have a terminological difference
going here. You talk about "using an MVC", but I think of MVC
as a design pattern, not a category of software.
Further, it's somewhat confusing to talk about an MVC as opposed
to Mason, because Mason can -- as you admit here -- be used to
implement the MVC pattern.
And that's pretty clearly the recommended usage in the Mason world:
Also, as I suspected, when you talk about "a true MVC framework",
you're talking about the current fad for what I would call web
application frameworks, all of which (to my knowledge) use some
sort of object-relational mapper, (e.g. Class::DBI).
The key feature of these things seems to be that they sacrifice
database design for the sake of object design, which while this may
speed up development it strikes me as being exactly backwards as far
as performance is concerned.
And so we come to your closing shot:
"pick up a true MVC framework, you might come to view
Mason as less developed -- I have."
May I inquire, in what way you find it "less developed"?
