The author took a bit of a pot shot at NodeJS (which I do understand why). But I think it's a bit naive to think NodeJS is any more complicated of a stack or p

The author took a bit of a pot shot at NodeJS (which I do understand why). But I think it's a bit naive to think NodeJS is any more complicated of a stack or problematic as a whole than Ruby -- it's simply not. As someone that's moved between many different stacks, once you're in that stack and being productive, you tend to realize "oh, this is why this is a good stack." From the outside, if you've never used the stack professionally, you tend to get skeptical. But for me these days, there's very little difference between stacks as to "what's better". For me it's mainly "best tool for the job and who are are your carpenters?" But these days, NodeJS seems to be the right choice for many of these jobs and it's hard to sit here and knock it. Why? Unfortunately, Rails suffers from what a lot of other Web stacks suffer from -- the browser requires some level of JavaScript marshalling that all the other stacks have transform to. When you can code on the server and on the client in terms of the same language. It just makes the process cleaner and far more manageable. When an object on the server is the same as the one on the client. Your life just becomes a little less stressful. And I love other stacks. I'm a Python fan. But It's really hard to not embrace NodeJS when you've got developers who work on the frontend (Maybe in React, Vue, etc.) and server developers who are on NodeJS and they can speak together, moreover, work within each others codebase and not kill each other. That doesn't mean Ruby is a bad stack, it just means like all the other stacks, you have to move data between the backend and browser and it's "Oh, I need this change on the server, I'll have to wait for..." -- no, you can do that, if you've got the ability to code in JS, and you're a fullstacker, you can do both.