Why do many developers refuse to use the MVP pattern?

MVP separates UI (View), business logic (Presenter), and data (Model). The View passively displays data and forwards user actions to the Presenter. The Presenter handles logic, interacts with the Model, and updates the View.

Reasons for rejection:

1. Boilerplate code: MVP requires creating separate interfaces and classes for the View and Presenter, which increases the amount of code, especially in large projects.
2. Testing the View: Testing the Presenter is easy since it's a regular Java/Kotlin class. However, testing the View, especially with manual binding to the Presenter, can be more challenging without specialized frameworks.
3. Managing the View's lifecycle: The Presenter must consider the View's lifecycle (onCreate, onResume, onPause, onDestroy) to prevent memory leaks and incorrect updates. This requires additional logic in the Presenter.
4. Complexity for simple screens: For simple screens with minimal logic, MVP can be excessive and complicate development without clear benefits.
5. Emergence of more modern patterns: MVVM and MVI offer alternative approaches using LiveData, Flow, Coroutines, ViewModel, and state management, which simplify lifecycle management and component interaction. ViewModel from Architecture Components is the standard solution from Google.

Although MVP has its drawbacks, it can still be useful in certain scenarios, especially in legacy projects or when reactive UI is not required. However, the trend in Android development leans towards using MVVM and MVI.