Controller vs Service vs private method on command object.

[al0]

And what... it is better if your solution breaks if you change one tiny little thing?

Surely, not. Never have said it.

This is where your mind-boggling, incomprehensible talent for demagogy kicks in again! Which hypothetical assumptions are you talking about? Have you no shame - to pull such empty, unsupported statements right out of your a$$?

Rather from almost 30 years of experience in professional software development.

is supposed to make me believe that it is safer and more practical to forgo programming discipline and good structure in favor of all-in-a-big-pile applications with no "basic assumptions", whatever the hell that means?

I never, ever have contradicted programming discipline and good structure, it purely your imagination. But neither good structure, nor best of best programing discipline does not guarantee elegance. It seems that you forgot one word in the elegance definition "Elegance is the attribute of being unusually effective and simple."
And this unusually makes all of the difference.
To reach it you have to go out of ordinary, often way out of ordinary, otherwise it would be good, professional, stable, manageable (you name it) solution, but not elegant one.

No! The word "Design" in the English language - as well as in Software Engineering - does not mean "Documentation".

It should not mean it, but for wast majority of peoples it means, sorry, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design - it accurately reflects mass consciousness in SW development. And compare it with general meaning of Design here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design.

Yes, I 100% agree with you that it is misuse of word, but it is long established misuse.

But, I am sure you'd be happy to school me on the English language as well...

No way, you have to give up this hope

Or, you provide your own inaccurate interpretation of what the other person is saying, and argue with that, and so on...

I dare to say that you employ this technique to much greater extent that I do.

And vouch for a disciplined approach that promotes elegance and minimizes complexity.

Disciplined approach - for sure, as I have said many times I'm 100% on your side on this matter, but it is not enough for elegance, sorry. Such approach (together with careful thinking) may bring simple and effective solution - but not necessarily (and even likely) unusually simple and effective.

I don't need to have a rigid definition of what all these concepts are.

Yes, for your own use you need not such definitions, but as soon as you start to explain them to others you have to provide such definitions to have a chance to be understand properly (and even then "Does not matter how clear you explain something, anyway somebody would misunderstand you" ).

I define them based on common sense.

Rather on your own (while pretty good) sense.

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

[al0]

And because all our controversy was really about terminology, I put my definition of "elegant solution"
it is not just "simple and effective solution that merely follows set of well-established rules", but "simple and effective solution that establishes new set of rules that other would follow on".
And this new set of rules brings its unusualness.