I think this an interesting point. I feel like the ASP.NET Web Forms stack got a bad name because it so closely coupled a web application framework with proprietary, abstracted, controls (which I agree was bad).
But an empty MVC4 application makes no assumptions about frameworks (JS, CSS, ORM, Tests, View engine, etc.), and yet it generates criticism that there isn't enough dependencies built-in. It seems MS can't find the middle ground.
I agree that it fragments open source projects (you won't find any two MVC4 apps that follow the same methodology), but I find the flexibility for an internal team to be more desirable than Rails.
But an empty MVC4 application makes no assumptions about frameworks (JS, CSS, ORM, Tests, View engine, etc.), and yet it generates criticism that there isn't enough dependencies built-in. It seems MS can't find the middle ground.
I agree that it fragments open source projects (you won't find any two MVC4 apps that follow the same methodology), but I find the flexibility for an internal team to be more desirable than Rails.