So he's comparing a RoR web application with a Java portlet? Notice the portlet screen shots don't show the rest of the browser window like the Rails ones. Tha

So he's comparing a RoR web application with a Java portlet? Notice the portlet screen shots don't show the rest of the browser window like the Rails ones. That's because you'd see the rest of the portal chrome and the god-awful unfriendly URL that all portals can't escape. Portlets weren't meant to hold full web applications, but that's how every IT department tries to use it. Actual web applications let you have control over the URL structure and easily link to other pages. In portlets, to maintain cross-portal compatibilty, the portlet must be isolated from the rest of the portal. That means you can't link to other pages unless you use a specific portal's proprietary API or hard-code the links. He also tends to gloss over the setup of the portal and application servers needed to run the portlet even for development purposes. I assure you it's more than 'rails server' or 'rails script/server'. I also noticed how he has to depend on Eclipse to make it look like all he has to do to see changes is use a simple keyboard shortcut. Eclipse is doing the work of compiling the code, making a proper .war file and moving that file to right place so his application server will re-deploy it. Not to mention that depending on the change, you have to restart the application server also. Rails doesn't require 3rd-party tool support to make things seem easier than they are.