I hope this is the right place to ask.

I'm an experienced developer, and have used MVC for much time. This question is in the context of iOS/macOS development for the most part, (SwiftUI).

Using MVC in iOS I always found the paradigm and architecture simple.

  • Views contained view related code (layout and reactive code)
  • Models were just stores
  • Controllers populated models, did all the business/app logic, held references to the the objects that did work (network handlers, data parsers, business logic)

In MVVM, (used in SwiftUI) I'm really struggling with where to put this code.

I see the right approach as:

  • Models are still stores they are dumb and get populated by the ViewModel
  • Views are pure in terms of their purpose, UI code only, declarative
  • ViewModels (I think) hold the logic, have references to objects that do the work, get results from these objects and populate the model, let the view know when things change.

Do I have this right, if not, where does the "controller code" go in MVVM?

1 Answer 1


In MVVM, the business logic is built into the Model. The ViewModel is there to bridge between the View and the Model, so it's logic only pertains to driving the display and updating the model from user interactions with the View.

I think the disconnect you are having is trying to have an anemic model work for MVVM, and it can't. By anemic model, I mean one that only holds data and has no logic. Even with MVC, the controller was only ever supposed to call the methods in the model layer. So your first point of what you think is right, does not in fact match the pattern.

The right approach is:

  • Models are rich: containing data and business logic
  • Views are strictly for drawing the UI
  • ViewModels hold the logic to bridge the gap from the View to the Model

Now, how you build out your model can make use of services and dumb data objects, but you should have a consistent API. Domain Driven Design helps put some structure to the concept. For example, it's not uncommon to have Repositories and such to retrieve Models and update them.

To drive this home, if you have a Button in your View, it will be bound to a Command, which in turn is invoked in the ViewModel. The Command then in turn calls a method on your Model, like Save(), or if there are parameters will collect the values from the ViewModel before calling the method.

  • Thank you that makes so much sense. One last thing, I'm trying to understand where general work objects would go. Let's say I have an object like CoreLocationManager in iOS, it's an object that gets my GPS and updates it in the model. Would that location manager object be owned by the model (referenced) and not in fact owned by the ViewModel? Do I have that right?
    – Woodstock
    Jun 11, 2021 at 13:46
  • For example, near all simple tutorials like this show the ViewModel own the logic code: andyibanez.com/posts/using-corelocation-with-swiftui , or here where the View itself owns the reference: hackingwithswift.com/100/swiftui/78
    – Woodstock
    Jun 11, 2021 at 14:40
  • 1
    Parts of the model can still be anemic. The data access layer, for example. Jun 11, 2021 at 15:28
  • Right. The Model includes the data objects themselves and any supporting services like the CoreLocationManager. As long as your system still performs the logic when you strip away all Views and ViewModels, then you have an appropriate Model to put any set of layers on top. Whether you do MVP, MVVM, MVC, that style of model still works in every scenario. Jun 11, 2021 at 15:53
  • 1
    @Woodstock - I guess it helps if you realize that MVC/MVP/MVVM family of patterns are not whole-applications architectures; they are mostly concerned by the presentation side of things. Think of the "model" as something like a catch-all term for the part of the application that contains the actual business logic (or more specifically, some part of it that's fulfills the use cases of a particular view). How you structure that is up to you (it's not really prescribed by MVC/MVP). The ViewModel part is meant to be a somewhat abstract representation of a view ("a model of the view"). Jun 11, 2021 at 17:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.