Why M-V-VM versus M-VM-V?

Why is Model-View-ViewModel known as such?  Why not Model-ViewModel-View given the target of having the View communicate via a ViewModel(s)?

Because the ViewModel is passive as a consequence of WPF databinding.

This is an old post but on point http://blogs.msdn.com/b/johngossman/archive/2005/10/08/478683.aspx

@davewill:

Because it's a take on MVC.

Because you can read it as "Model - View - by way of ViewModel".

Symmetry.

Easier to say acronym.

Easier to say acronym? Maybe "easier", but very far from easy.

I believe there's a bit of an effort to move to the easier name "View Model", which at least is closer to "Presentation Model" which is the name of the pattern that most people outside of WPF/SL land know. I've blogged about it before, and I still maintain its very unfortunate that we have multiple names for this pattern, and worse, that so many think there's a difference between them.

As a front-end UI/UX guy I like VVVB:

View/View/View/Back-end-crap-I-don't-do

@vesuvius: Thanks.  Reading.

@wkempf: Found the blog.  Read it and the comments.  Good discussion.

@Harlequin: Made me laugh.  Good one.  As an any layer but the UI layer guy we will have to combine forces and create HVDWC: HarlequinView/DaveWillCrap.

As one who is entirely new to MVVM the name started me off on the wrong foot as it lead me to believe M to V and V to VM which is entirely contrary to what one would want to do.  But then that lead me to wonder if I misunderstood VM in the grand scheme of things.  Based on the readings it appears to be nothing more meaningful than acronym parlance.

Exactly, its a take on MVC

Model View  Controller

Model View View-Model

That is a fa@MsGuyz:

That is a fantastic interjection, clear and concise, the original nomenclature is confusing to most