Anonymous Coward Posted…

I read that piece in its entirety, and came away with the conclusion that the author hasn't fact-checked. To note one glaring example, in section 4, Spolsky says that the Rails documentation is an odd place to discuss networking ("Routing"), which it would be. Had he actually clicked the link, though, he would have discovered that Routing is actually a Rails simplification of mod_rewrite.

That, among other things (including the responses to some of the problems noted) in the comment thread by David Heinemeier Hansson), led me to disregard much of the piece as overtly biased/uninformed.

Kenneth Love Posted…

My only problem with posts like this is a basic mis-understanding of the rant. The writer is complaining about Rails not working like HE wanted it to. Rails is a tool, though. It's meant to be used in a certain way. Just because you need to put in a screw doesn't mean your hammer is going to suddenly sprout a Phillips end. Or that it SHOULD.

So, in the end, his rant is mis-guided and mis-aimed.

Darrel Posted…

The rant is a list of complaints he has. Nothing more, nothing less. He wrote about them well and made several interesting critiques. It helped me understand what RoR is more than a lot of other RoR posts.