"I don't know why people compare MVC-framework-X-that's-inspired-by-Rails'-foundations-and-fundamentals to Rails. Rails isn't great because MVC. Rails is great

"I don't know why people compare MVC-framework-X-that's-inspired-by-Rails'-foundations-and-fundamentals to Rails. Rails isn't great because MVC. Rails is great the vast and mature tooling and ecosystem that exists in Ruby (bundle, rake, thor; Rubygems), and the effortless ability to metaprogram (which is why Rails is what it is)." This is exactly it, IMO. My employer uses both Rails and ASP.NET MVC, and it is not uncommon for the .NET developers to need to hand-roll one or two of the proposed features of a project, where Rails developers could have just used a well-tested gem. Soft-delete and content versioning are obvious examples: ActiveRecord plus community gems make these features trivial in Rails. Rails does fall down on raw performance: this becomes noticeable on large batch jobs and big test suites, but it's never been a blocker. Personally, I am very interested in Buffalo[1], which is essentially Rails for Go, but it will take at least a few years for the Buffalo ecosystem to be able to match Rails. [1]: https://gobuffalo.io https://gobuffalo.io