Having little experience with Rails, it's the tone of that "Crazy, Heretical" article [1] that really strikes me. That tone where you're laboring to describe s

Having little experience with Rails, it's the tone of that "Crazy, Heretical" article [1] that really strikes me. That tone where you're laboring to describe something that really truly does make sense when you're in the company of a bunch of people that just don't want to hear it. There's too much purism in those kinds of arguments, arguments that really are more about spectrums. It sounds like Rails is really great for learning the shallowest 40% of a wide variety of programming concerns, and a lot of web solutions for small clients aren't ever going to dip below that 40%. And as soon as you get beyond that 40%, asking questions like "but what if it doesn't make sense to do it that way?" and "what is that weird runtime bug that doesn't happen in my development environment?" and "why can't I refactor without being scared I'll introduce a weird regression bug?" then it's totally fine to be attracted to the idea of static typing, compilation, and libraries/frameworks that are more explicit. [1] http://jamesgolick.com/2010/3/14/crazy-heretical-and-awesome-the-way-i-write-rails-apps.html http://jamesgolick.com/2010/3/14/crazy-heretical-and-awesome...