I'm not convinced that the Fregean rebuttal has been successfully repelled by Kripke in Kripke's puzzle. Don't Londres and London have two different senses in that Pierre associates Londres with being pretty and London with being ugly? I find Kripke's response to the Fregean view unsatisfying in that he says it doesn't solve the puzzle of whether or not Pierre thinks London is pretty. Does he mean that there is still a contradiction?
I can grasp why Pierre could associate the same definite descriptions with both London and Londres but refuse to assent that the two names are the same city. So I see why the descriptivist view is insufficient, but I fail to see why the Fregean view of sense is not enough.
Perhaps I am confusing sense and definite descriptions.