I don't know if I agree with this. I've worked on large MVC applications for government, they definitely exist. MVC is IMO a simpler (and more consistent?) beast than aspnet, and in my experience doesn't have the same lazy legacy/dinosaur developers, so there's a smaller volume of questions for the number of lines of code written.

.NET vs Ruby is a whole holy war which I'm not going to get into, but there are a lot of people out there who like to get shit done, and find that .NET (and MVC) works just fine (great even) for that.

> huge corporate projects don't use it

Incorrect assumption (source: developer at huge corporation on huge projects)

OK, most huge corporate projects don't use it.

Point is, there was no huge shift to MVC after it was released. A ton of web projects are still made using WebForms and will continue to be. MVC will continue to be a minority framework.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's true. I have come across a lot more ASP.NET MVC + JavaScript jobs than I have WebForms the past couple of years.

I think the shift has quietly occurred because everyone wants at least a little AJAX, and everyone wants jQuery, and once you've thrown those in the mix, who wants to do that using WebForms?

In my experience, MVC has already become extremely popular among medium-sized orgs with at least somewhat ambitious developers. Very large orgs with rosters of stuck-in-time developers who really love WebForms and custom control libraries, and fear or hate jQuery, well... they're not going to change until MSFT officially proclaims that WebForms are for chumps. Even though they are chumps, that will spur them to change.

> Point is, there was no huge shift to MVC after it was released.

Why would you assume that if they can't move to a new architecture, they'll move to a new language and OS?

Just the number of unfilled requirements for ASP.NET MVC shows around 2000 openings.

http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=%22asp.net+mvc%22&l=