Not sure where you're getting your information, but it's not quite accurate.

- Ruby On Rails "out of the box" is MVC. It's still widely used
- Knockout? Really? It's pretty much fallen out of favor due to Angular.
- I didn't mention Angular because it's one added thing to learn. Trying to grasp all the technologies at once increases the learning curve. I often see Angular implemented poorly.
- I identified the "current" Microsoft position because that's what the original question was about
- How you would wear your architect hat is a valid direction. I always separate controller from data from view model. But, again, this increases the learning curve when you're new to ASP.NET MVC because beginner examples don't ever do things this way.
- Moving things client side generally requires more and more vs server side. Again, not what beginner examples show.

It's not that I was pushing the "MS" view of things. It's that I was recommending a simplified beginner plan.

BTW, your understanding the "current" Microsoft view is a bit dated.


>For a tiny project like this try to assess how good your memory of the way the tools have to be used is intact ;-)
>Involving MereMortals plus DevExpress for the thing I currently visualize is somewhere between "overkill" and "going against KISS"
>
>If you ***can*** churn out screens with that stack without going back to the docs automatically from previous usage, in my book adding the technological debt of a heavier stack (brittleness+load times) vs. better customisation options will be trumped by lesser "programmer time" cost ;-))
>
>On MVC/MVVM: Craig is spot on with identifying MS' ***current*** position as MVC, but MS can be described as a heavily moving target. In Java land MVVM is marginal compared to MVC, in Javascript land a sizable set shies away from the question ("MV*"), some are clearly MVVM (Knockout...), more call themselves MVC than those citing MVVM., M_VP is more client side (underscore needed as to not call up MVP)..
>
>Even in a project running under MVC flags, ***I'd*** implement (if wearing architect hat as well) the Contoller angle leaning closely to the VM pattern: data driven, an object responsible for view states distinct from persistable data object(s). Coming from personally thinking MVVM is superior to MVC as architecture AND reading quite a few JS fwk patterns calling themselves MVC but implementing something that could be called MVVM if you squint a tiny bit ;-))
>
>Also - if you use your old stack: consider the pattern used dominantly in the stack when it was written.
>Update:
>From your original question I expect a more server side based approach. Current craze puts more interest client side, SPA, Angular and so on. Normally I`d lean that way as well, but you did not ask about that - and it might fall into the "overkill" area as well ;-))