I'm giving up on this discussion. I see plenty of critique of Rails but they're obtuse statements that could apply to any app framework. Oh, rails causes devs t

I'm giving up on this discussion. I see plenty of critique of Rails but they're obtuse statements that could apply to any app framework. Oh, rails causes devs to make a mess at scale? Huh, well let me introduce you to my friend React. Unless you say something specific, then you're doing twitter-like pile on and nothing of substance is being added by your voice. Here's my critique of rails that offers specifics. There are parts of the framework that are automatically baked in but unknown and unused by the majority of projects. Message encryptor comes to mind. I'd prefer to choose a feature set, like a toggle config. Why should my company pay for objects to reside in memory that have never and will never be used? Or how about the need to duplicate directory structure within M, V, and/or C? Kinda exhausting and boring. It doesn't take long until the question arises, why does it have to be that way? Oh, well, of course it doesn't. But if you're doing it "the rails way" where its convention over configuration then it should be done. Not to mention well known widely used rubygems rely on following the convention withing your own app. I'm not saying its bad, but its boilerplate the generators currently don't handle. Aside from rails, I see alot more complexity added, not by rails or follwong rails convention, but by adhd bored devs that play social games, that are a weird mix of "I'm better than you" and "I'm tragically insecure of you finding out I'm not as so smart". I'll take a team of middling hard working devs over a 10xer on the spectrum any day.