Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
This article is a superb example of bad writing, of bad thinking. I have no skin in the Ruby&#x2F;Rails game. I&#x27;m not a web developer. But I&#x27;m interested in the fates of languages and the merits of major approaches that define many jobs and decide the employability of millions, so I read it. The problem is: what in the world is he saying? What is his thesis, and what reason does he give us for believing his thesis? His opening section summarizes as: &quot;I started to read a rant. It made me mad so I wrote a rant. Then I read the whole thing and felt better, so I wrote this.&quot; Okay, now try to summarize the second section. Something about Rails and Basecamp. Wordpress. Apple crushed Adobe. Finally: &quot;Then there is the issue that Ruby&#x27;s future is now tightly coupled with Rails.&quot; What issue? What is the point of all this? Sorry, OP, this is bad writing. It&#x27;s bad thinking. It&#x27;s saying &quot;stuff&quot; without knowing why.<p>My advice: if you have skin in this game and need to make real decisions about what platform&#x2F;language you use, find an article that reasons soundly about what the questions are and convinces you of its answers. Don&#x27;t listen to this one. And if this quality of thinking is diagnostic of how Ruby&#x2F;Rails developers think generally... well I&#x27;m glad that&#x27;s a game my skin is safe from.