3 ms·
I don't know why you think the author was trying to defend Django or "attack" Rails? It seems to me that they were simply trying to point out the ridiculousness
by RussianCow 7y ago
I don't know why you think the author was trying to defend Django or "attack" Rails? It seems to me that they were simply trying to point out the ridiculousness of Rails threads always devolving into "Rails vs Django" flame wars.
- dymk 7y ago“Discuss pros and cons” is not a flame war; attacking people for civilly discussing something is a flame war.
- RussianCow 7y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the comment you're responding to as an "attack" at all. They're pointing out that the OP is "civilly discussing something" that's irrelevant to the topic of the thread, and that this seems to happen in every thread about Rails (which I have also noticed).
- sanderjd 7y agoTotally, and that would make a ton of sense on a "I think Rails is better than Django" article or something like that, but on an article purely about Rails, this whole thread about Django reads like a non-sequitur. I was surprised to see this as the top comment, because it seemed totally unrelated to anything in the article. If you go to the article and ctrl-f for "django" you come up empty. So the pushback seemed reasonable to me.