It sounds like to me the only reason people prefer ruby is that it has things like the data model built in. It seems asp.net mvc would benefit from merging with the Subsonic project and have that be the default model. It should still support out-of-the-box orm or custom data models (dataset, etc) but Subsonic keeps in line with the open source, mvc pattern so much, and it’s so easy to use that in my opinion it’s a perfect match.

If they seamlessly integrated the two they’d have one serious contender against rails!

Mindscape just released with Lightspeed another M for MVC. http://www.mindscape.co.nz/products/LightSpeed/

Post edited to include the suggestion in the comment above. Not sure if it’s the best way moving forward, but it strikes me as a reasonable way to provide some basic guidance without forcing a methodology down the user’s throat.

I’m assuming the two choices are EF and L2S? If so, my problems are this:

1. I haven’t seen a single guide on using Entity Framework within ASP.NET MVC. True, it is an option, but it’s not exactly the easiest to stumble across when you’re picking up the ASP.NET MVC framework when you start out.

2. Most guides revolve around L2S and I agree that if I had to pick what Microsoft’s suggested ORM of choice were for ASP.NET MVC, I would say L2S since all of their people (Scott Guthrie, Phil Haack, Rob Conery, Scott Hanselman, etc.) use it in their ASP.NET MVC demos. However — and this may just be me — it doesn’t seem like L2S is that great a choice moving forward if it isn’t going to be enhanced (e.g. will it only support SQL Server 2005 going forward?).

As I mentioned before, my issue here may be more to do with the fact that L2S seems to fit the bill perfectly, yet it’s in a state where it can’t really be pushed any harder than it is.

As for what I would do if it were up to me? I would at least put in the option to point to an existing (or create a new) database in the new -> project -> asp.net mvc site workflow. With a database created, the project template could generate the model (even if it is empty) along with the validation interface for starters. This would at least help ease people into the framework and provide a decent starting point. If they wanted to strip it all out and substitute in their own ORM of choice and validation framework, then that’s completely up to them. But to give an empty Model folder as the default way to start an ASP.NET MVC project is expecting a bit much of the user.

All you have to do is right click on your model folder and pick "Add New…" That’s not particularly onerous.

Are you unhappy that MVC doesn’t implement the active record pattern? What specifically would you change if it were up to you?

BTW, model guidance is already available for beginners who seek it: http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/#MVC_Models

Fair enough. So if ASP.NET MVC isn’t meant to be a rail competitor, I suppose the next logical question would be: why not? It doesn’t seem like such a stretch to make it one. The framework doesn’t have to be so opinionated as to prevent you from going in any direction other than the one provided. However, I think the framework would have a far better chance at surviving if it came with a few more bells and whistles. As it is now it seems a little too barebone. But as people have said before, RoR is a much more mature framework so who knows what the future holds for ASP.NET MVC.

@Justin

That could be. It probably doesn’t help any that Microsoft has been very reluctant to incorporate any third party libraries into their frameworks in the past. Personally, it felt as though L2S was the original choice, but then it had to be toned down about halfway through ASP.NET MVC’s development when it was announced it would no longer be enhanced.