At first when I adopted this architectural pattern, it was a development of classic MVC so already used the terms “model” and “view”. I actually did adopt the term “view-model” for what I’m referring to here as the presentation data layer. After all, it was the connection between the view and model, so what else should it be called? :-)

However, while there certainly are similarities between the architecture I described above and MVVM — the VM can collect data from the Model and reformat it for the View, and the VM might manage some aspects of the view state — they also differ in some important ways.

Most significantly, MVVM has a linear V–VM–M relationship between the components. The V and M never communicate directly in either direction.

In the architecture I described, the rendering code might depend on both state layers, accessing both application state directly and derived or view-specific data from the presentation state. This avoids any need for boilerplate in the middle layer if nothing special needs to be done with the application data before it’s used for rendering.

Likewise, in response to events triggered from something in the rendered output, messages might be sent to the application and/or presentation state layers so they could update accordingly. The distinction is always clear: any event that can affect application data gets sent there, while anything that affects view state goes to the presentation data layer. In practice, it’s unusual for a single UI event to affect both, so usually only one message is needed. (There is an implicit assumption being made here that the starting point for handling events triggered by user interactions is defined as part of the rendering, which is not necessarily always the case, but let’s gloss over those details for now or this comment will get insanely long.)

In MVVM, there may also be direct two-way data-binding between the V and VM. The architecture I described never assumes that kind of 1:1 relationship between something in the rendered output and the underlying data.

I think layout belongs to the views (you call them presentation rendering). View models provide data to be visualized, but it’s rarely a good idea to compute pixel positions, or handle low-level input there. These things are coupled with views too much.

This is another place where I think the responsibilities in the architecture I described are allocated differently. I want any non-trivial calculations to be in the presentation data layer, and I want the presentation rendering layer to be as dumb as possible. This separates data processing from I/O, which is something I favour as a general principle for organising programs.

In this case, it has the specific advantage that you might have very different strategies for testing them. The presentation data layer is pure computation and can be easily unit tested. The I/O is all about rendering and, in some cases, simulating actions on the rendered output that trigger some sort of message to be sent, so for this you might want some sort of snapshot-based testing or simulated UI environment.

You might also want to incorporate totally different third party libraries or depend on different platform APIs to implement each step. For example, switching out one UI rendering library for another or updating to integrate with some new-style platform API probably shouldn’t affect any of the data (including presentation data like diagram layouts or animation logic) unless we’re specifically shifting responsibility for something like handling animations to a dependency rather than our own code or vice versa.

Some frameworks even run them on a separate thread called “compositor thread” so they play fine even if the main thread is blocked or starved for CPU time.

Sure. One of the nice things about the architecture I described is that it’s entirely neutral about these things. If your requirements so dictate, there is nothing to stop you implementing a more elaborate design at any level of the system. For example, that might include running time-consuming parts of the presentation data logic in separate threads, having changes in the presentation data triggered by timers or other system events, delegating some aspects to hardware acceleration where available, or using any sort of sophisticated caching or scheduling implementation for better performance.

Much of this would add unnecessary complexity in a simple CRUD application GUI. If you’re building a complex, real-time visualisation of an incoming data stream or you’re implementing a game engine that needs to draw part of a large game world with many moving parts, presumably you might have a different perspective on how much extra complexity in the design is acceptable if it gets you the performance you need.