This article is a superb example of bad writing, of bad thinking. I have no skin in the Ruby/Rails game. I'm not a web developer. But I'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: "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." Okay, now try to summarize the second section. Something about Rails and Basecamp. Wordpress. Apple crushed Adobe. Finally: "Then there is the issue that Ruby's future is now tightly coupled with Rails." What issue? What is the point of all this? Sorry, OP, this is bad writing. It's bad thinking. It's saying "stuff" without knowing why.
My advice: if you have skin in this game and need to make real decisions about what platform/language you use, find an article that reasons soundly about what the questions are and convinces you of its answers. Don't listen to this one. And if this quality of thinking is diagnostic of how Ruby/Rails developers think generally... well I'm glad that's a game my skin is safe from.
My advice: if you have skin in this game and need to make real decisions about what platform/language you use, find an article that reasons soundly about what the questions are and convinces you of its answers. Don't listen to this one. And if this quality of thinking is diagnostic of how Ruby/Rails developers think generally... well I'm glad that's a game my skin is safe from.